[Zope-CMF] Re: Removing default from browser:skin layers?

2005-11-12 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Tres Seaver wrote: Brent Hendricks wrote: Tres, I'm having trouble with the change you made today taking 'default' out of the list of layers for the cmf browser:skin in CMFDefault/skin/configure.zcml. It seems to cause the views we'e defined in CMFPlone to no longer be found via the

[Zope-CMF] Re: Removing default from browser:skin layers?

2005-11-19 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Tres Seaver wrote: The error I am seeing is early, during product initialization, before any tests are actually running: File /home/tseaver/projects/Zope-CVS/Zope-SVN-trunk/lib/python/zope/configuration/config.py, line 1390, in toargs args[str(name)] = field.fromUnicode(s) File

[Zope-CMF] Re: Head-slot in five_template

2006-01-07 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Lennart Regebro wrote: CMF 1.5 and 1.6 five_template (the one that provides a bridge between zope3 and CMF templates) doesn't have a head-slot. I'm just wondering if that slot is somewhat standard in Zope3 and CMF and not only CPS, becuse it it is I'll add it. So? Is it? Zope 3's Rotterdam

Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: RFC: backporting including python-package-product support to support Zope 2.8

2006-01-15 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Lennart Regebro wrote: CMFonFive version dance confuses the heck out of me, we should try to keep things simple. Yes, I agree. So I think all of CMFonFive, including these changes, should be in CMF 1.6. That ends the dance. It was a mistake to move half of CMFonFive into CMF. We should have

[Zope-CMF] Re: [z3-five] Re: RFC: backporting including python-package-product support to support Zope 2.8

2006-01-16 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Martijn Faassen wrote: In an earlier thread I argued that this modified version of Five 1.2 should perhaps get a new name to indicate the additional feature. Do you all think that this would be feasible, or should we just go on with 1.2.1? If we give it a new name, the question is obviously

[Zope-CMF] Re: [z3-five] Re: RFC: backporting including python-package-product support to support Zope 2.8

2006-01-16 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Tim Hicks wrote: The reason for doing so is simple: Products is bound to go away. It gives a lot of people a lot of pain. With a lot of Zope 3 technology entering many Zope 2 projects, it would be good to get a clean slate early on: put new stuff on Product-less packages. You can turn that

Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: [z3-five] Re: RFC: backporting including python-package-product support to support Zope 2.8

2006-01-16 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Sidnei da Silva wrote: On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 12:26:09PM +0100, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: | Then again, Zope 2.9 is stable (people don't really trust a .0 | release) and we could release Five 1.4 any time after Rocky is done. So | there's really no reason for people NOT to upgrade, I

[Zope-CMF] Re: RFC: backporting including python-package-product support to support Zope 2.8

2006-01-16 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Martijn Faassen wrote: Is Plone 2.5 still targeting Zope 2.8? Yes. Yes to which question? Yes to Is Plone 2.5 still targeting Zope 2.8. Perhaps these use cases aren't driven by Plone/CMF core and some other packages would like to use this in Zope 2.8? Can they be identified? The

[Zope-CMF] Re: [z3-five] Re: RFC: backporting including python-package-product support to support Zope 2.8

2006-01-16 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Tim Hicks wrote: Coming at this with a zope 2 head on, it seems to me that it might be nice if I could carry on using the Products directory so that when I add new 'products', I don't have to mix them in with the core zope code in lib/python/. What do you mean by core zope code? Zope lives in

Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: [z3-five] Re: RFC: backporting including python-package-product support to support Zope 2.8

2006-01-16 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Sidnei da Silva wrote: On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 01:12:46PM +0100, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: | Sidnei da Silva wrote: | On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 12:26:09PM +0100, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: | | Then again, Zope 2.9 is stable (people don't really trust a .0 | | release) and we

[Zope-CMF] Re: RFC: backporting including python-package-product support to support Zope 2.8

2006-01-17 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Alexander Limi wrote: From what you're saying I deduct that Plone 2.1 favours Zope 2.7 over 2.8. Below you are suggesting that Plone 2.5 should do the same with Zope 2.8 (favouring it over 2.9). I don't understand why that should be. If one version has to be favoured at all, it should be

[Zope-CMF] Re: RFC: backporting including python-package-product support to support Zope 2.8

2006-01-18 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Martin Aspeli wrote: From what you're saying I deduct that Plone 2.1 favours Zope 2.7 over 2.8. Below you are suggesting that Plone 2.5 should do the same with Zope 2.8 (favouring it over 2.9). I don't understand why that should be. If one version has to be favoured at all, it should be

[Zope-CMF] Re: Reference Engine Componentization

2006-01-18 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
whit wrote: sorry for the cross post, but I know there are a number of other reference engines out there and I would like to get input as we look at moving the AT ref engine being a component. here is a rough list of steps: 1) move current storage of references to use IAnnotations for new

Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: RFC: backporting including python-package-product support to support Zope 2.8

2006-01-18 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Andrew Veitch wrote: Let's put it this way: By the time Plone 2.5 is releases (if according to roadmap), Zope 2.8 is one month away from being *discontinued*. Conservative or not, I wouldn't bet on a release line that won't receive bugfixes the minute I start using it... Just so I'm clear,

[Zope-CMF] Re: [dev] CMF 2.0 browser views and Five traversal

2006-03-07 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
yuppie wrote: Based on the discussion on the Five list I propose this solution: 1.) To become independent of the lookup order views are named different than the corresponding skin methods. 2.) Skins *and* views are always enabled. 3.) A new extension profile hooks up the views instead

Re: [Zope-CMF] Fighting the Zope 2.9 testrunner

2006-03-21 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Tres Seaver wrote: I'm not sure what Chris meant, but the change to the visual output of the testrunner when running with dots seems gratuitous to me, as well -- I don't see any benefit to the indented, narrower output, Me neither, for what it's worth. Zope 2.9 broke the 'confiugre-make'

[Zope-CMF] Re: How do deal with cmfcatalog-wrapped objects?

2006-03-31 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
yuppie wrote: Andreas Jung wrote: we have a CMF-based application where I am trying to migrate from TextIndexNG 2 - 3. For a content-type class A I have configured an adapter to implement IIndexableContent. However when the object is reindexed CMF wraps the object as IndexableObjectWrapper

[Zope-CMF] Re: SVN: CMF/trunk/CMFCore/ - fixed the unit tests that failed on Zope 2.10

2006-06-01 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Yvo Schubbe wrote: Log message for revision 68396: - fixed the unit tests that failed on Zope 2.10 (There is still one error, but that seems to be caused by a Zope bug.) Please file collector entries so that we know and eventually fix them. +class Expression(Persistent):

[Zope-CMF] Re: SVN: CMF/trunk/CMFCore/ - fixed the unit tests that failed on Zope 2.10

2006-06-01 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
yuppie wrote: Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Log message for revision 68396: - fixed the unit tests that failed on Zope 2.10 (There is still one error, but that seems to be caused by a Zope bug.) Please file collector entries so that we know and eventually fix them. Tres did

[Zope-CMF] Re: GenericSetup now incompatible with Zope 2.8?

2006-06-07 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
yuppie wrote: Jens Vagelpohl wrote: This checkin seems to have broken Zope 2.8-compatibility: http://svn.zope.org/GenericSetup/trunk/tests/common.py?rev=68391r1=41338r2=68391 Specifically, the line from zope.testing.cleanup import cleanUp breaks Zope 2.8, I checked all stable tags (2.8.5,

[Zope-CMF] Re: CMF tests failing in zope 2.10

2006-06-29 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Florent Guillaume wrote: Some CMF 1.6 and 2.0 (and I guess trunk) tests are failing in Zope 2.10 due to missing adapters somewhere. Example, when it tries to evaluate the path 'info/id' (where info is a dict): Error in test test_generateWorkflowXML_multiple

[Zope-CMF] Re: Effective use of effective_date and expiration_date

2006-08-29 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Raphael Ritz wrote: Tres Seaver schrieb: [..] Yep -- this is how the typical site uses those dates. However, some folks want actual workflow transitions to happen ASAP after each date passes. In that case, you need to write a periodic task which searches for objects which are in the

[Zope-CMF] Re: [dev] writing tests for CMF 2.1

2006-11-08 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
yuppie wrote: Since CMF 2.0 I did a lot of test refactoring, changing the ways CMF tests are set up. Goal was to use more generic and up to date testing patterns, making it easier to write new tests. Here is an overview what changed: ZopeTestCase.app() -- All tests that

[Zope-CMF] How to run CMFCore 2.0 tests?

2006-12-07 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Hi there, while forward-porting the fix for http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/459 from 1.6 to 2.0, I was running the tests for CMFCore 2.0 and was getting tons of failures with a straight checkout (see attached file). Is there anythign I'm missing? Philipp -- http://worldcookery.com --

[Zope-CMF] Re: How to run CMFCore 2.0 tests?

2006-12-07 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Jens Vagelpohl wrote: P.S.: This problem does not occur on the trunk. I'll blame Yvo for the clean run on the trunk ;) Yes, I was quite (positively) baffled by how nicely the tests run on CMF, using layers and all that. Kudos to Yvo! -- http://worldcookery.com -- Professional Zope

[Zope-CMF] Re: Fwd: [Checkins] SVN: CMF/branches/1.6/C CMFCore.DynamicType: Fixed behaviour regarding default view.

2006-12-09 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Stefan H. Holek wrote: CMF 1.6 is supposed to work with Zope 2.8. Aha. Yuck. :) However, either there is no queryDefaultViewName or it lives someplace else... from zope.app.publisher.browser import queryDefaultViewName ImportError: cannot import name queryDefaultViewName All fixed

[Zope-CMF] Re: [CMF 2.1] FSPageTemplate Unicode

2007-01-06 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
On 6 Jan 2007, at 23:22 , Martin Aspeli wrote: Okay, spoke to Philipp on IRC and he asked me to relay his opinions on some of this: - CMF tools ought not to depend on acquiring things from 'self' if at all possible. - TTW code will need aq contexts for security. However, it makes

[Zope-CMF] Re: [CMF 2.1] FSPageTemplate Unicode

2007-01-06 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Hanno Schlichting wrote: Martin Aspeli wrote: Hanno Schlichting wrote: PhiliKON some time ago suggested that Five should wrap the utilities eventually but nobody followed up on that idea. Philipp also has some ideas (not too far off completion, I believe) that may remove some of the

[Zope-CMF] [CMF 2.1] PersistentComponents is not enough

2007-01-08 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Hi there, others and I have been pushing the usage of local components in Five. As a result it looks like the CMF 2.1 will use the CA to look up its tools. Woohoo! (Kudos to Jens and all the others!) There's one problem with all this which I admit I have failed to communicate better

[Zope-CMF] Re: [CMF 2.1] FSPageTemplate Unicode

2007-01-08 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Tres Seaver wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jens Vagelpohl wrote: On 8 Jan 2007, at 01:19, Hanno Schlichting wrote: Right now I would let all existing CMF tools implement that interface, so we would be on the safe side. In a later release we can revisit this and see if

[Zope-CMF] Re: [CMF 2.1] PersistentComponents is not enough

2007-01-08 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Jens Vagelpohl wrote: CMF won't come eggified for this release, that work has stalled. whit wrote: plone's egg story looks non-existent until next release. Right, I figued as much. Also, it's only for Zope 2.11 that we can actually tackle sensible egg

[Zope-CMF] Re: [CMF 2.1] FSPageTemplate Unicode

2007-01-08 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Martin Aspeli wrote: Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Actually, I agree with Dieter here. If something has an __of__(), just wrap it. You can't possibly do anything wrong, actually, as it already happens and it provides the best backward compatibility with what we have right now. Is __of__

[Zope-CMF] Re: Tools as local utilities

2007-01-21 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Jens Vagelpohl wrote: I have now finished (well, finished awaiting feedback and help on one item) the work on the jens_tools_as_utilities branch. There's one set of test failures out of CMFActionIcons/tests/test_exportimport that I can't quite interpret. I believe it has to do with the way

[Zope-CMF] Re: Tools as local utilities

2007-02-06 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Charlie Clark wrote: Am 06.02.2007 um 22:14 schrieb Rocky: Ultimately the closer we get to structuring our code deployment like regular python code the easier it will be to take advantage of things like distutils, eggs, the cheeseshop, etc. I look forward to doing: easy_install ZopeCMF I

[Zope-CMF] Re: Tools as local utilities

2007-02-06 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Jens Vagelpohl wrote: On 7 Feb 2007, at 00:36, Martin Aspeli wrote: Eggs make your life easier, especially if you want to use tools like workingenv.py or zc.buildout. Well, for simple work with the CMF like setting up a quick instance for hacking and development *I do not want to use any

[Zope-CMF] Re: Tools as local utilities

2007-02-06 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Martin Aspeli wrote: I don't think eggs/setuptools are perfect. But I don't think they're useless either, and on the whole, so far, they've brought more benefits than problems. By playing with eggs, we're playing better with the rest of the Python community (and things like entry points are

[Zope-CMF] Re: Tools as local utilities

2007-02-06 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Rocky wrote: On Feb 5, 5:40 pm, Jens Vagelpohl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5 Feb 2007, at 19:43, Rocky Burt wrote: On Feb 2, 4:41 pm, Jens Vagelpohl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, sounds good, I misunderstood your email. I suppose the last bit left to do now is the custom site manager. Rocky?

[Zope-CMF] Re: Tools as local utilities

2007-02-07 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Jens Vagelpohl wrote: On 7 Feb 2007, at 01:58, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Eggs contain Python packages. How you deploy the Python packages is your choice. If you like copying or symlinking, fine. And, heck, you can still symlink your products to Products. Nobody's getting rid

[Zope-CMF] Re: Tools as local utilities

2007-02-09 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Jens Vagelpohl wrote: On 9 Feb 2007, at 11:03, yuppie wrote: Taking this into account, how should the five.localsitemanager thing be packaged? Maybe we can use the same pattern as TextIndexNG3: The Python package is shipped in a 'src' subdirectory of the product. The product's __init__ adds

[Zope-CMF] Re: Five's local sitemanager, CMF, etc

2007-02-26 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Rocky wrote: On Feb 23, 3:50 pm, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yuppie wrote: Maybe I'm missing something. But wasn't a major goal of five.localsitemanager to return acquisition wrapped tools? That was my understanding, too. I thought this would just mean aq_base'ing the utility and

[Zope-CMF] Re: Five's local sitemanager, CMF, etc

2007-02-26 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Rocky wrote: On Feb 23, 3:50 pm, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yuppie wrote: Maybe I'm missing something. But wasn't a major goal of five.localsitemanager to return acquisition wrapped tools? That was my understanding, too. I thought this would just mean aq_base'ing the utility and

[Zope-CMF] Re: Five's local sitemanager, CMF, etc

2007-02-26 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Tres Seaver wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Rocky wrote: On Feb 23, 3:50 pm, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yuppie wrote: Maybe I'm missing something. But wasn't a major goal of five.localsitemanager to return acquisition wrapped

[Zope-CMF] Re: Five's local sitemanager, CMF, etc

2007-02-26 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
On 26 Feb 2007, at 23:48 , Tres Seaver wrote: I nowhere said anything about deprecation. All meant was to discourage relying on acquisition when developing new tools. I think that deserves a comment (I suggested nothing more). No deprecation warning or anything necessary;. OK. I do

[Zope-CMF] Re: tools-as-utilities, merging, releasing, etc

2007-03-01 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Sidnei da Silva wrote: That BeforeTraverseEvent should be fired by ZPublisher/BaseRequest.py, after it looks up __before_publishing_traverse__ but before calling it I believe. Firing it from inside CMF doesn't make sense. Yes, the ZPublisher should be firing it. But it doesn't. While it's

[Zope-CMF] Re: Delete trouble

2007-03-26 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Martin Aspeli wrote: Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: *sigh* Chapter XYZ in my book explains the process :). Whenever you traverse over a site, its site manager becomes the active component registry. So if you haven't traversed over that site yet, the utilities in that site won't be found

[Zope-CMF] Re: Delete trouble

2007-03-26 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Dieter Maurer wrote: Martin Aspeli wrote at 2007-3-25 12:46 +0100: ... I agree, except I think there could potentially be lots of places where this could be happening. In the general case, it's probably safe for that code to assume the utility is there, and treat it as an error if it's not,

Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: Delete trouble

2007-03-27 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
On 27 Mar 2007, at 20:57 , Dieter Maurer wrote: As so often, we have completely different views on how things should be: When I have an IObjectBeforeDeleteEvent subscriber which should update the unique ID tool, then it can assume that there is indeed a unique ID tool. And if the

[Zope-CMF] Re: getToolByName depreciation, getUtility, and five.lsm

2007-03-28 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Martin Aspeli wrote: We believe that these recent changes have introduced implicit magic into a standard Zope3 api to fit Zope2 acquisition. There should be an explicit separate api if we want acquisition wrapped context-aware utilities. As an example of a symptom caused by the implicit

[Zope-CMF] Re: CMF Tests: 9 Failed, 2 Unknown

2007-03-29 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Sidnei da Silva wrote: On 3/29/07, Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The cheeseshop shows a pytz-2007d version: http://cheeseshop.python.org/pypi/pytz I was refering to the version included in Zope. That's because we're using a stupid vendor import instead of simply requiring it as

[Zope-CMF] Re: getToolByName depreciation, getUtility, and five.lsm

2007-03-29 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Tres Seaver wrote: I'm not sure what impact that would have for the already-converted code which used to use the API. I can see value both in leaving it converted, as showing the Zope3-ish way, as well as in reverting some or all of it. For instance, perhaps we should consider reverting just

[Zope-CMF] Re: [dev] unresolved site manager related issues

2007-04-11 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
yuppie wrote: I'm judging by the solution itself *and* by the fact that we made a decision long ago and released a beta based on that decision. We should reverse that decision only if we are sure it was a mistake. I think it was a mistake. It's ok, we all make mistakes. It's good that we

[Zope-CMF] Re: [dev] unresolved site manager related issues

2007-04-12 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
yuppie wrote: Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: yuppie wrote: Kapil's also right when he says that utilities by principle are context-less components. By principle all Zope 3 code might depend on setSite to work as expected. setSite() is something that influences the place (= registry

[Zope-CMF] Re: Moving to browser views

2007-07-18 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Charlie Clark wrote: I making my first stab at browser views for my iCal support having finally come up with some templates that seem to produce files that work with most calendar programs. I have a couple of questions: 1) should I implement them as BrowserViews calling templates or should I

[Zope-CMF] Re: pdf generation

2007-07-25 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
David Chelimsky wrote: I'm using zope 2.7.8 and looking for a means generating a PDF document. I've googled and looked around a bit but everything seems rather dated (stuff from 2002). That means this stuff is only marginally older than your Zope version ;). What are you all doing to deal

[Zope-CMF] Re: pdf generation

2007-07-25 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Charlie Clark wrote: Do you know of a Zope Product that already wraps report lab, or do you recommend just accessing directly with a script? I can't think of anything that would do this for you: transforming HTML to PDF doesn't usually work very well. Reportlab is fairly easy to use and

[Zope-CMF] Re: CMF collector on Launchpad?

2007-08-13 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Jens Vagelpohl wrote: Andreas Jung is in the process of getting the regular Zope 2 issue collector moved onto Launchpad. He said the Launchpad guys could move other collectors like the CMF collector at the same time. The question is, do we want this? My vote is -0.5, mostly because I never

[Zope-CMF] Re: Eggification redux

2007-09-25 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Charlie Clark wrote: Am 25.09.2007 um 02:05 schrieb Tres Seaver: I'd like to break the remaining CMF packages out (moving from '/CMF' to 'Products.CMFCore', 'Products.CMFDefault', etc.) and push the 2.1.0 eggs out, as well as equivalent changes for PluggableAuthService and PluginRegistry. Any

[Zope-CMF] Re: [Zope-PAS] Re: Eggification redux

2007-09-25 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
On 25 Sep 2007, at 13:20 , Jim Fulton wrote: On Sep 25, 2007, at 3:40 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Charlie Clark wrote: Am 25.09.2007 um 02:05 schrieb Tres Seaver: I'd like to break the remaining CMF packages out (moving from '/ CMF' to 'Products.CMFCore', 'Products.CMFDefault', etc

[Zope-CMF] Known working sets II [was: Eggification redux]

2007-09-25 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
(Also CCing zope3-dev where the first known working set discussion started a while ago) Tres Seaver wrote: This is the known good problem. I'm pretty convinced that adding some kind of PyPI subset, where gardeners for a given package set keep the list of packages / versions known to work well

[Zope-CMF] Re: eggification status?

2007-11-13 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
yuppie wrote: Wichert Akkerman wrote: A related question is: how do we want to eggify CMF? It seems to make sense to create one egg for the whole of CMF and a second egg for GenericSetup. Why not one egg for each CMF product? Can you please elaborate? *Why* one egg for each product? We'll

[Zope-CMF] Re: Content types based on Python objects

2007-11-28 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Charlie Clark wrote: Am 28.11.2007 um 14:03 schrieb Charlie Clark: class Grid(dict, PortalContent) ... TypeError: Error when calling the metaclass bases multiple bases have instance lay-out conflict Looks like using the old favourite UserDict solve the incompatability problem. class

[Zope-CMF] Re: Working with Zope 3 skin layers

2008-05-27 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Charlie Clark wrote: I've defined and configured a layer and it works when called by ++skin++ traversal but I have problems if I configured views to work with it explicitly: I get not found errors. ie. browser:page for=Products.Charlie.event.interfaces.IEventDetail

[Zope-CMF] Re: Working with Zope 3 skin layers

2008-05-28 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Charlie Clark wrote: What I think is still confusing me is: 1) I have created my dedicated skin 2) I have registered a view for that skin I assumed that by registering the view for the skin, the view would automatically use the right layer when called. Views don't use layers. You apply a

[Zope-CMF] Re: Working with Zope 3 skin layers

2008-05-28 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Charlie Clark wrote: Am 28.05.2008 um 13:02 schrieb Philipp von Weitershausen: Views don't use layers. You apply a skin layer to the request, and depending on whether the view was registered for this skin layer or any of the layers that are contained in that skin layer, the view

[Zope-CMF] Re: License file question

2008-05-29 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Maurits van Rees wrote: Raphael Ritz, on 2008-05-29: Not sure whether that's following best practice but here is how paster/zopeskel generate this at the moment (this is taken from a custom add-on I'm currently working on): [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/dev/paster/incf.applications/trunk$ ls docs incf

Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: License file question

2008-05-29 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
On 29 May 2008, at 11:27 , Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: But personally I like having it inside the main folder, so in your example above it would be incf.applications/incf/applications/HISTORY.txt There's some benefit to that because it'll be part

[Zope-CMF] Re: Add forms and menus

2008-07-13 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Daniel Nouri wrote: Martin Aspeli writes: Yuppie writes: but in general that's the way to go. Since z3c.form became the standard in the Zope 3 world I'd like to see Zope 2 and CMF moving in the same direction. Unfortunately using plone.z3cform is no option for CMF because it has a different

Re: [Zope-CMF] IMember: does it exist?

2008-10-08 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Paul Winkler wrote: Rob Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: then CMF does it's normal wrapping of these user objects using the standard MemberData implementation. Hmm, right, so then this might still be on-topic here ;-) Maybe the right thing is for CMF to do a directlyProvides() call in