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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
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. Th
Hi Jens!
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Let's get this discussion back from generic pie-in-the-sky to the simple
situation where we just need this one package integrated into CMF 2.1,
and quickly.
Wichert wants a Plone 3 beta very very soon, there is no time to switch
the CMF to any other packaging/
Tres Seaver wrote:
> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>
>>> All those who think this is somehow impure and dirty, keep in mind
>>> that this arrangement won't be forever, only for the 2.1 branch.
>>> Afterwards there's more time to plan on packaging things differently.
>> The only
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
I'm not convinced that anything which is this tightly coupled to Zope
needs to be a package, rather than a product. I don't think the
"package zealots" get the fact that purity is not a win if we have to
distort the rest of the application to satisfy it.
Amen to that.
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
All those who think this is somehow impure and dirty, keep in mind
that this arrangement won't be forever, only for the 2.1 branch.
Afterwards there's more time to plan on packaging
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9 Feb 2007, at 00:40, Tres Seaver wrote:
I guess *something* has to import it, so that may be unavoidable.
It does feel fairly awkward to write something that is essentially a
Zope 3 module in a "non-package" way.
I'm not convinced that anythi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>
>> All those who think this is somehow impure and dirty, keep in mind
>> that this arrangement won't be forever, only for the 2.1 branch.
>> Afterwards there's more time to plan on packaging things di
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
All those who think this is somehow impure and dirty, keep in mind
that this arrangement won't be forever, only for the 2.1 branch.
Afterwards there's more time to plan on packaging things differently.
The only thing that worries me is that if we artificially inject it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wichert wants a Plone 3 beta very very soon, there is no time to
switch the CMF to any other packaging/buildout mechanism before
that. What happens on the trunk after the 2.1 branch is cut, I
don't care. I do care about getting the 2.1 beta o
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Let's get this discussion back from generic pie-in-the-sky to the
simple situation where we just need this one package integrated into
CMF 2.1, and quickly.
+1
Wichert wants a Plone 3 beta very very soon, there is no time to
switch the CMF to any other packaging/bui
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6 Feb 2007, at 20:23, yuppie wrote:
Rocky wrote:
On Feb 5, 5:40 pm, Jens Vagelpohl [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5 Feb 2007, at 19:43, Rocky Burt wrote:
Yep, looks like I'll be starting on five.localsitemanager pretty
soon. Although I didn't s
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 of
Products
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>
> I won't grace the uncalled-for sarcasm with an answer. You
> misunderstand my point. I simply don't want the existing dead-simple
> way of creating quick sandboxes be replaced by some mechanism where I
> need to start writing configuration files or learn some won
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
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
Lennart Regebro wrote:
> Bildout, ploneout and workingenv are there to try to solve these
> problems. If you don't like *them* I fully understand. They annoy me
> since they install like, every again, which takes time, and their
> complicated, and developer packages that ue them often require me to
On 2/7/07, Charlie Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Am 07.02.2007 um 00:36 schrieb Martin Aspeli:
> Why? Is it the ability to specify sensible version restrictions?
> Have multiple versions of the same package as different
> dependencies for different dependents? Automatic downloading of
> depe
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
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 ver
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 tool
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 h
Charlie Clark wrote:
Am 07.02.2007 um 00:36 schrieb Martin Aspeli:
Why? Is it the ability to specify sensible version restrictions?
Have multiple versions of the same package as different
dependencies for different dependents? Automatic downloading of
dependencies where possible/desired? S
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
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 hack
Am 07.02.2007 um 00:36 schrieb Martin Aspeli:
Why? Is it the ability to specify sensible version restrictions?
Have multiple versions of the same package as different
dependencies for different dependents? Automatic downloading of
dependencies where possible/desired? Standardised package m
Am 07.02.2007 um 00:45 schrieb Jens Vagelpohl:
Well, for simple work with the CMF like setting up a quick instance
for hacking and development *I do not want to use any tools*. I
want to retain the same ease I currently have where all I need to
do is either copy or link a few directories i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
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
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 h
On 2/6/07, Charlie Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 t
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 hate eggs and easy_ins
On Feb 6, 5:45 pm, Jens Vagelpohl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Right now all you need to do to install CMF is to link all the
> contained folders into the instance Products folder. I'm somewhat
> averse to complicate that process.
I understand the sentiment and we dealt with the same thing for
Plo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6 Feb 2007, at 20:23, yuppie wrote:
Not knowing any better I was assuming there'd be a Zope 2-style
product, which we could pull in as a SVN external?
Hm... well, as long as I avoid absolute imports in
five.localsitemanager there's no reason it
Rocky wrote:
On Feb 5, 5:40 pm, Jens Vagelpohl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5 Feb 2007, at 19:43, Rocky Burt wrote:
Yep, looks like I'll be starting on five.localsitemanager pretty
soon. Although I didn't see if we decided anywhere how that would get
included with CMF (with plone it's pretty
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?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
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? :)
Yep, looks like I'll
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? :)
Yep, looks like I'll be starting on five.localsitemanager pretty
soon. Although I didn't see if we decided anyw
Hi Jens!
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 2 Feb 2007, at 20:32, yuppie wrote:
I'm going to spend some time this weekend adding unregisterUtility
where needed. Thanks for your help!
That's no longer necessary. I changed the set up / tear down for
non-functional layers. The layers now call cleanUp()
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2 Feb 2007, at 20:32, yuppie wrote:
I'm going to spend some time this weekend adding unregisterUtility
where needed. Thanks for your help!
That's no longer necessary. I changed the set up / tear down for
non-functional layers. The layers now
Hi Jens!
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 24 Jan 2007, at 12:58, yuppie wrote:
The logging messages no longer show up and I simplified the
FunctionalLayer tests. No need to register the tools again -
setSite(self.app.site) sets up the correct registry.
But the cleanup issues are still not resolved
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 24 Jan 2007, at 12:58, yuppie wrote:
The logging messages no longer show up and I simplified the
FunctionalLayer tests. No need to register the tools again - setSite
(self.app.site) sets up the correct registry.
But the cleanup issues are sti
Hi Jens!
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 22 Jan 2007, at 01:43, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Other than that I have one unrelated failure in the GS tests
themselves and some logger messages coming through, all those smell
like test cleanup issues to me. If I run the Generi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 22 Jan 2007, at 01:43, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
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 o
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12 Dec 2006, at 00:14, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
I haven't seen any progress on the tools as local utilities story for
some time now. Is there anything specific I can help with?
Sorry, I have a bunch of changes sitting on my computer right now
Hi Jens, all!
I haven't seen any progress on the tools as local utilities story for
some time now. Is there anything specific I can help with?
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> On 22 Nov 2006, at 12:15, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
>> At the time I wrote this it was kind of experimental and I didn't know
>> if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 22 Nov 2006, at 12:15, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Why did you pick exactly the two weeks where I'm on vacation
without an
Internet connection to do this?
Very careful planning.
At the time I wrote this it was kind of experimental and I didn'
Hi Jens, all.
Why did you pick exactly the two weeks where I'm on vacation without an
Internet connection to do this?
Anyways by reading through the mailing list it seems you have figured it
all out by now ;)
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>
> I have to run off right now, but a quick look over GSLocalAd
Hi Jens!
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
- - There are failing tests in CMFCore.exportimport.tests.test_actions,
basically everything that derives from
CMFCore.exportimport.tests.test_actions._ActionSetup. The insidious
thing is this:
- running all tests or all CMFCore tests shows the failures
-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 19 Nov 2006, at 18:59, Tres Seaver wrote:
"""Export actions tool.
"""
site = context.getSite()
- -tool = getToolByName(site, 'portal_actions', None)
+tool = getUtility(IActionsTool, context=site)
This looks like it wil
On Sun, 2006-19-11 at 12:59 -0500, Tres Seaver wrote:
> Rocky Burt wrote:
> > But we shouldn't have to specify ``context=site`` should we?
> > getUtility should automatically figure out what the nearest chain of
> > sites should be and look for local utilities in each one of them
> > automatically
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rocky Burt wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-19-11 at 14:37 +0100, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>> Using just the ActionsTool right now in order to get that all set up
>> and then move to the other tools, I've gotten almost always there,
>> but there is one set of te
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 19 Nov 2006, at 17:39, Rocky Burt wrote:
+tool = getUtility(IActionsTool, context=site)
This looks like it will be the new way of looking up CMF tools? Looks
great. But we shouldn't have to specify ``context=site`` should we?
getUtility s
On Sun, 2006-19-11 at 14:37 +0100, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> Using just the ActionsTool right now in order to get that all set up
> and then move to the other tools, I've gotten almost always there,
> but there is one set of tests that refuse to run right now, the ones
> in CMFCore.exportimport
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 19 Nov 2006, at 16:47, yuppie wrote:
I did not want to step on your toes, so I planned to modernize the
exportimport tests *after* you are done with your local utilities
changes. But I can make this high priority if it should be done
*before
Hi Jens!
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Using just the ActionsTool right now in order to get that all set up and
then move to the other tools, I've gotten almost always there, but there
is one set of tests that refuse to run right now, the ones in
CMFCore.exportimport.tests.test_actions which derive f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Using just the ActionsTool right now in order to get that all set up
and then move to the other tools, I've gotten almost always there,
but there is one set of tests that refuse to run right now, the ones
in CMFCore.exportimport.tests.test_actio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 14 Nov 2006, at 11:41, yuppie wrote:
Hi Jens!
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
So I'm currently stealing^H^H^H^H^H^H^H integrating Hanno's code
from GSLocalAddons into CMFCore and CMFDefault.
AFAICS GSLocalAddons doesn't depend on CMF and might be us
Hi Jens!
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 14 Nov 2006, at 11:41, yuppie wrote:
AFAICS GSLocalAddons doesn't depend on CMF and might be useful for
other projects as well. Don't know if you did that already, but please
add the code to GenericSetup, not CMFCore.
I think this is a good time to creat
Hi Jens!
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
So I'm currently stealing^H^H^H^H^H^H^H integrating Hanno's code from
GSLocalAddons into CMFCore and CMFDefault.
AFAICS GSLocalAddons doesn't depend on CMF and might be useful for other
projects as well. Don't know if you did that already, but please add the
c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13 Nov 2006, at 22:35, Tres Seaver wrote:
My new handler for the component registry is all set up and
registered correctly, and the "various" import step that calls
importVarious is set as a dependency for the component registry
import step. The
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>
> On 13 Nov 2006, at 16:22, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>>> I have to run off right now, but a quick look over GSLocalAddons
>>> suggests it should be part of the main CMF Default GS profile, and
>>> doing it with GenericSetup ce
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13 Nov 2006, at 16:22, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
I have to run off right now, but a quick look over GSLocalAddons
suggests it should be part of the main CMF Default GS profile, and
doing it with GenericSetup certainly is the way to go. Why did
H
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Now, you can do this with GenericSetup as well, thanks to Hanno. See
http://svn.plone.org/svn/collective/GSLocalAddons/trunk/
The test is informative:
http://svn.plone.org/svn/collective/GSLocalAddons/trunk/tests/
test_components.py
Hanno said h
> I am experimenting with that right now, but my z3/Five-Fu ran low
> again ;) My problem: calls to zope.component.getUtility
> (interface_class) never return anything. Here's the top part (the
> bottom is just the old way) of my CMFCore.utils.getToolByName:
>
Yay!
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10 Sep 2006, at 16:08, Tres Seaver wrote:
Rocky Burt wrote:
On Sat, 2006-09-09 at 21:57 +0100, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Hi guys,
philiKON pointed out something interesting to me the other day - we
could actually register the existing tools as loc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13 Sep 2006, at 13:06, Miles Waller wrote:
Personally, I'm neutral on moving the requirement for CMF 2.1 to
Zope 2.10. Obviously we're not using any of those new features
yet, but it would be nice to enable their use by mandating 2.10.
CMF
Hi!
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Personally, I'm neutral on moving the requirement for CMF 2.1 to Zope
2.10. Obviously we're not using any of those new features yet, but it
would be nice to enable their use by mandating 2.10. CMF 2.2 will move
the bar higher I'd wager.
I'd love to hear some kind
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10 Sep 2006, at 20:09, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Just out of curiosity, which dependencies does Plone 3.0 have that
require Zope 2.10? Or was it some papal edict to use 2.10?
2.10 really is lovely, because Zope 3.3 is lovel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10 Sep 2006, at 20:09, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Just out of curiosity, which dependencies does Plone 3.0 have that
require Zope 2.10? Or was it some papal edict to use 2.10?
2.10 really is lovely, because Zope 3.3 is lovely. :)
The local componen
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10 Sep 2006, at 14:53, Rocky Burt wrote:
This sounds fine, but we'd probably want to wait until we have a CMF
version that does require 2.10, right? HEAD says Zope >= 2.9. Unless
we want to work with indirections that know
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rocky Burt wrote:
On Sat, 2006-09-09 at 21:57 +0100, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Hi guys,
philiKON pointed out something interesting to me the other day - we
could actually register the existing tools as local utilities as of Zope
2.
Hi.
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>
> Just out of curiosity, which dependencies does Plone 3.0 have that
> require Zope 2.10? Or was it some papal edict to use 2.10?
It was more of an edict, to catch up with the latest versions of our
underlying frameworks again.
The two things we are actually relying
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rocky Burt wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-09-09 at 21:57 +0100, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> philiKON pointed out something interesting to me the other day - we
>> could actually register the existing tools as local utilities as of Zope
>> 2.10. Tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10 Sep 2006, at 14:53, Rocky Burt wrote:
This sounds fine, but we'd probably want to wait until we have a CMF
version that does require 2.10, right? HEAD says Zope >= 2.9. Unless
we want to work with indirections that know how to do the right
t
On Sat, 2006-09-09 at 21:57 +0100, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> philiKON pointed out something interesting to me the other day - we
> could actually register the existing tools as local utilities as of Zope
> 2.10. That way, you could do this:
>
>actions = getUtility(IActionsTool)
>
On Sun, 2006-10-09 at 12:57 +0200, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> On 9 Sep 2006, at 22:57, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>
> > philiKON pointed out something interesting to me the other day - we
> > could actually register the existing tools as local utilities as of
> > Zope 2.10. That way, you could do this:
76 matches
Mail list logo
