-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sorry for my silence yesterday - there was apparently a cable cut
where I live so I've been without phone and internet all day and all
night yesterday.
Looks like everything is in place now, thanks to Wichert and Yvo. If
there are no other urg
Hi!
Previously yuppie wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> >But we can't know if component or factory is used. What if someone uses
> >a factory which returns a component with a __module__ set?
>
> Don't know what __module__ usually looks like if the component is
> created at registration time. I
Hi!
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously yuppie wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously yuppie wrote:
The check for aq_base should be fine, but your example shows a second
issue: type() is used to get the factory. That only works if the class
is the factory.
So there seems to be indeed a
Previously yuppie wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> >Previously yuppie wrote:
> >>The check for aq_base should be fine, but your example shows a second
> >>issue: type() is used to get the factory. That only works if the class
> >>is the factory.
> >>
> >>So there seems to be indeed a need to st
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously yuppie wrote:
The check for aq_base should be fine, but your example shows a second
issue: type() is used to get the factory. That only works if the class
is the factory.
So there seems to be indeed a need to store somewhere the factory name :(
I think we
Previously yuppie wrote:
> The check for aq_base should be fine, but your example shows a second
> issue: type() is used to get the factory. That only works if the class
> is the factory.
>
> So there seems to be indeed a need to store somewhere the factory name :(
I think we need that to get t
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously yuppie wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
I get something else: if I import this:
the export looks like this:
That seems to be a similar but different bug.
this is caused by the zope.component.registerUtility not storing the
factory method but the return
Previously yuppie wrote:
> Hi!
>
>
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> >Previously yuppie wrote:
> >>Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> >>>Previously yuppie wrote:
> - The exports created by the new components handler are still flawed,
> ISiteRoot and placeless components are not exported correctly.
> >>
Hi!
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously yuppie wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously yuppie wrote:
- The exports created by the new components handler are still flawed,
ISiteRoot and placeless components are not exported correctly.
I'm quite sure I fixed that: I was able to export the co
Previously Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> I'm supposed to do a CMF 2.1.0 release today, but the state of these
> issues is unclear. Wichert, did you look at it? There are no checkins
> into either CMF or GS as far as I can see. Export now yields this:
I took care of the GenericSetup changes as far as
Previously yuppie wrote:
> - It might be useful to review the docstrings in CMFCore.utils and
> interfaces._tools. There are misleading comments like "BBB: for use in
> 'getToolByName'; in the future, prefer
> 'zapi.getUtility(IActionsTool)'." Seems not all docs reflect the latest
> tools-as-
Previously yuppie wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> >Previously yuppie wrote:
> >>- The exports created by the new components handler are still flawed,
> >>ISiteRoot and placeless components are not exported correctly.
> >
> >I'm quite sure I fixed that: I was able to export the components and
>
Previously yuppie wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> >Previously yuppie wrote:
> >>- The exports created by the new components handler are still flawed,
> >>ISiteRoot and placeless components are not exported correctly.
> >
> >I'm quite sure I fixed that: I was able to export the components and
>
Hi!
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5 Aug 2007, at 20:15, yuppie wrote:
I'm supposed to do a CMF 2.1.0 release today, but the state of these
issues is unclear. Wichert, did you look at it? There are no checkins
into either CMF or GS as far as I can see
yuppie wrote:
AFAICS the premature GenericSetup 1.3 release has the biggest issues:
- There are also some usability issues (strange ordering; strange
interface names including '_tools' and '_content';
Ordering and dotted names are fixed now. This makes it much easier to
read the diffs.
Che
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5 Aug 2007, at 20:15, yuppie wrote:
I'm supposed to do a CMF 2.1.0 release today, but the state of
these issues is unclear. Wichert, did you look at it? There are no
checkins into either CMF or GS as far as I can see. Export now
yields this:
Hi!
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 2 Aug 2007, at 13:55, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously yuppie wrote:
1.) Exporting the ISiteRoot utility, 'object' should be empty. But I get
this instead:
2.) By placeless components I mean something like this:
The import works fine, but the export
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2 Aug 2007, at 13:55, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously yuppie wrote:
1.) Exporting the ISiteRoot utility, 'object' should be empty. But
I get
this instead:
2.) By placeless components I mean something like this:
The import works
Previously yuppie wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> >Previously yuppie wrote:
> >>- The exports created by the new components handler are still flawed,
> >>ISiteRoot and placeless components are not exported correctly.
> >
> >I'm quite sure I fixed that: I was able to export the components and
>
Am 31.07.2007 um 17:17 schrieb Tres Seaver:
'imperative' indicates that the profile executes arbitrary Python
code;
'declarative' indecates that the profile applies external
configuration
data, read from one or more data files in the profile.
Running two imperative profiles, A and B, may
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously yuppie wrote:
- The exports created by the new components handler are still flawed,
ISiteRoot and placeless components are not exported correctly.
I'm quite sure I fixed that: I was able to export the components and
import them again. Has that been broken sin
Previously yuppie wrote:
> Hi!
>
>
> Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> >
> >On 20 Jul 2007, at 11:00, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> >
> >>Previously Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> >>>Next step: What needs fixing for the final?
> >>
> >>There has been a surprising lack of response to this question. Since I
> >>need a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Charlie Clark wrote:
> Am 31.07.2007 um 15:51 schrieb yuppie:
>
>> AFAICS the premature GenericSetup 1.3 release has the biggest issues:
>
> I'm behind the loop on GenericSetup having only encountered it when
> writing a content type for a single s
Am 31.07.2007 um 15:51 schrieb yuppie:
AFAICS the premature GenericSetup 1.3 release has the biggest issues:
I'm behind the loop on GenericSetup having only encountered it when
writing a content type for a single site. I would appreciate an
explanation of the difference between declarativ
yuppie wrote:
> Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>> On 20 Jul 2007, at 11:00, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>>> Previously Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Next step: What needs fixing for the final?
>>>
>>> There has been a surprising lack of response to this question. Since I
>>> need a CMF 2.1-final for Plone in a few
Hi!
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 20 Jul 2007, at 11:00, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Next step: What needs fixing for the final?
There has been a surprising lack of response to this question. Since I
need a CMF 2.1-final for Plone in a few weeks that could be very
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>> Next step: What needs fixing for the final?
>
> There has been a surprising lack of response to this question. Since I
> need a CMF 2.1-final for Plone in a few weeks that could be very
> positive news for me but I have a suspicion that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> Alright, I'm going to do the following today/tonight:
>
> - do a GS 1.3 beta and create a GS 1.3 branch, and put a release on
> zope.org
>
> - point the GS external on the CMF 2.1 branch to the GS 1.3 beta tag
>
> - run all u
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alright, I'm going to do the following today/tonight:
- - do a GS 1.3 beta and create a GS 1.3 branch, and put a release on
zope.org
- - point the GS external on the CMF 2.1 branch to the GS 1.3 beta tag
- - run all unit tests for the CMF 2.1 br
Previously Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > I really need a CMF release for Plone this week, but things seem to have
> > suddenly gotten a bit quiet. If nothing happens I'll probably make
> > another snapshot of the CMF 2.1 branch
Tres Seaver wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
I really need a CMF release for Plone this week, but things seem to have
suddenly gotten a bit quiet. If nothing happens I'll probably make
another snapshot of the CMF 2.1 branch this Friday and include that with
Plone 3.0rc1. We have several external f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> I really need a CMF release for Plone this week, but things seem to have
> suddenly gotten a bit quiet. If nothing happens I'll probably make
> another snapshot of the CMF 2.1 branch this Friday and include that with
> Plone 3
32 matches
Mail list logo
