> P.S.: I too think that more participation from the main "consumers",
> the Plone developers, is sorely needed on this list.
Rest assured that those of us who are involved in the low-level plumbing
of Plone do read the list regularly.
We have contributed quite a few bug fixes to CMF, though
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:30:20 +0100, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> It would help everyone if the CMF side opened up a little
> more to ideas coming down from Plone, and if the Plone side stopped
> reinventing wheels that would be much better off (and benefit
> everyone) in the CMF or other non-Plon
Tres Seaver wrote:
> Geoff, we *do* want the Plone developers to participate here. Some of
> the past history we can let pass, in order to share better in the
> future. In general, we would like to see "infrastructure" components
> shared, where possible.
I'm glad to hear it. My sense is that
Hi all--
I have added some useful new functionality to CMFCore's
CachingPolicyManager:
1) Caching policies can now control all the Cache-Control tokens defined
in the HTTP 1.1 spec (s-maxage, public, private, no-transform). To
implement this, I have added some extra keyword arguments to the API;
On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 23:08:37 +0100, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> IMHO there is at least one problematic item (well, it's not for the
> trunk, but for the 1.5/1.4 branches), which is the dependency on
> ZopeTestCase. The way the code works right now you immediately
> prevent any tests from running
On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 08:47:34 +0100, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> On 2 Sep 2005, at 23:49, Geoff Davis wrote:
>> So you would be OK if the tests just failed if ZopeTestCase were not
>> installed?
>
> IMHO they should not fail, they just should not be run. People with a
>
On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 18:42:56 -0400, Tres Seaver wrote:
> I'm not quite wure what ZTC buys us for unit testing; is it primarily
> used to get the environment right for a functional test? Is it needed
> when running the tests via 'bin/zopectl test' in an instance home?
I'm sure I won't do Stefan'
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 18:15:41 +0200, Florent Guillaume wrote:
>>> If an FSPageTemplate is associated with a Caching Policy and that Caching
>>> Policy has 304s explicitly enabled, a series of checks take place. If
>>> there is an If-Modified-Since header, the server checks the modification
>>> tim
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 14:06:50 +0200, yuppie wrote:
> Agreed. Nevertheless we should focus on lowering the barrier of entry
> for new CMF contributors. People used to write tests for Zope or Plone
> will have less trouble if they can use ZopeTestCase. And ZopeTestCase
> tests are definitely better
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 12:30:47 -0700, Alec Mitchell wrote:
>> If you write your ETags in an appropriate way, this works beautifully for
>> views. Consider an ETag that consists of a string containing (1) the
>> content object's modification date, (2) the user name for the currently
>> authenticated
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 05:39:45 +0200, Alexander Limi wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:20:02 +0200, Geoff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Alternatively you can create a function that checks the modification
>> times
>> for the content and for all portlets as we
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 21:50:36 -0500, Paul Winkler wrote:
>> Chris McDonough suggested an interesting way to do a poor-man's ESI: use
>> Apache's server side includes.
>
> That's an interesting idea. On the Zope side, you'd just have to set
> up your templates to spit out html containing SSI direct
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 11:48:30 -0500, Paul Winkler wrote:
> limi wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 06:18:30 +0200, Geoff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> RAMCacheManager has no good way to purge stale content.
>
> ZCacheable_invalidate()?
> (granted, in p
I have checked my CachingPolicyManager improvements into the
geoffd-cachingpolicymanager-branch. Enjoy!
Geoff
PS Those of you who raised concerns about ZopeTestCase causing test
problems in Zope 2.7 might want to take a look at why test_z3interfaces is
broken when you run the tests with zopectl
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 12:08:23 +0200, yuppie wrote:
> - Please make sure your checkins show up on the CMF-checkins list. Don't
> know if Tres can fix that for you or if you've got to register for that
> list.
Ok, I will look into it.
> - Please don't forget to set svn:eol-style and svn:keywords
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:45:54 +0100, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>
> All those tests run fine for me using your branch and a vanilla Zope
> 2.7.6. I'd make a wild guess and say it's your setup.
Could be. Did you try removing the lines in test_Template304Handling.py
that clean up the profile_registry?
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 19:24:51 +0200, yuppie wrote:
> Knock! Knock! Anybody there?
>
> I told you twice that I'm concerned about using PortalTestCase:
> http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2005-September/022891.html
>
> Would be nice to get some feedback. Obviously you don't share those
> con
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 11:33:53 +0200, yuppie wrote:
>> Perhaps I wasn't clear earlier when I said that I thought we should ship
>> our own CMFDefaultTestCase with the CMF? If I am understanding you
>> correctly, shipping a CMF-specific CMFDefaultTestCase should address your
>> dependency concerns.
On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 16:10 +0200, yuppie wrote:
> I'm still -1 on merging the branch as it is and Stefan confirmed that
> PortalTestCase should not be used directly:
> http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2005-September/022932.html
Yes, Stefan and I are saying the same thing: the Right Way t
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 08:45:05 -0500, Paul Winkler wrote:
> Yes! Maybe PortalTestCase.py should be moved into CMFTestCase?
> Certainly by zope 2.9 I think we should not ship PortalTestCase with
> Zope. Maybe in the next 2.8 release, ZopeTestCase/PortalTestCase.py
> could give a deprecation warning
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:33:48 +0100, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> How about a compromise: I'll spend a little time tomorrow rewriting
> that test module so it does not use ZopeTestCase at all.
Thanks, Jens! I'm pretty unfamiliar with the ins and outs of the
minimalist test fixtures that most of the C
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 10:14:10 -0300, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 01:54:38PM +0100, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> | >Ups! Should I back out? I've reviewed the changes and they look very
> | >good to me.
> |
> | You don't have to back them out, you could always create a second
> | p
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 16:04:18 +0100, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> Here's the result of my refactoring/rewriting for the tests in question:
>
> http://svn.zope.org/CMF/branches/geoffd-cachingpolicymanager-branch/?
> rev=38439&view=rev
>
> Geoff, as the one with the most "domain knowledge" as far as th
I have some fairly extensive documentation and some demonstration code
that shows how to make good use of the recent improvements to the CMF's
CachingPolicyManager. The documentation and code target Plone, but I
believe that most, if not all, of the code should run on CMF as-is. The
docs talk a l
You need 2.5.x (2.4.x doesn't support external ACLs, IIRC)
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 06:14:03 +0200, robert rottermann wrote:
> What version of squid do I need?
> 2.4x or 3.x
> thanks
> Robert
>
___
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http://mail
In testing all the new caching code, I ran into a fairly nasty IE bug:
IE pays attention (more or less) to the Cache-Control header when it comes
to requesting new content from the server. The "more-or-less" part is
because IE 5.5+ introduces some proprietary Cache-Control tokens,
pre-check and p
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:47:06 -0400, Tres Seaver wrote:
> Thanks for the analysis, and the fix (sorry for the earlier, premature
> reply).
No problem. P-J Grizel suggested offline that the problem might be due to
IE not parsing the time zone string at the end of the Last-Modified date
stamp corre
On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 10:27:16 +0100, Chris Withers wrote:
> OK, so I misunderstood the actual problem Paul was reporting...
My understanding is that CMFTestCase does something like the following:
Test runner for all test modules starts.
New transaction begins.
For each test module:
CMFTestCas
I just asked Stefan, and apparently my outline is a little off. He
says that (1) test cases starting a full transaction rather than a
subtransaction, and (2) modules don't start new transactions; rather, the
tests all use a DemoStorage and don't touch your ZODB. Again, I may not
have this quite r
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 12:34:25 +0200, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> Any test including PortalTestCase should really not be seen as a unit
> test, but a fucntional test. ;) If we could put in some effort of
> making a minimal dymmy-portal that can be deleted and recreated very
> quickly, then that would b
Hi Tres--
I think this is a case of us having a violent agreement :) Sorry if you
get this twice -- my first attempt to send appears to have disappeared
into the aether.
I agree completely that minimalist test rigs with dummy components are a
good fit for some things. However, the point I was t
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:18:12 +0100, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> I'm not sure if it's helpful for the main "consumer" of CMF releases
> (-> Plone), but those who develop their own solutions on top of the
> CMF might appreciate a release.
Jens,
Thanks! It looks like CacheFu (which makes use of t
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 23:09:01 +, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I'm working on CMFCalendar and running the tests out of the instance
> home like this:
>
> bin/zopectl test -m CMFCalendar -vv
>
Try bin/zopectl test -m -vv --dir Products/CMFCalen
33 matches
Mail list logo
