Re: [Zope] Re: [Zope-dev] Proposed installation changes for review

2003-03-13 Thread Dieter Maurer
Chris McDonough wrote at 2003-3-11 15:32 -0500: On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 15:22, Guido van Rossum wrote: That's why we're including the correct versions of ZODB and ZEO in Zope itself. That's already the case in Zope 2.6. Zope 2.6 doesn't yet include ZEO, at least I don't think it

Re: [Zope] Re: [Zope-dev] Proposed installation changes for review

2003-03-12 Thread Toby Dickenson
On Tuesday 11 March 2003 10:48 pm, Jamie Heilman wrote: You'd probably still want a single master config file for the whole thing, and a tool to check the configuration is valid separate from the process that uses the file to configure itself. Not I. Large applications with a master

Re: [Zope] Re: [Zope-dev] Proposed installation changes for review

2003-03-12 Thread Jamie Heilman
Toby Dickenson wrote: There is no amount of reconfiguration that can improve this in Zope2. Zope3 promises to fix this, but with modular python components rather than modular unix components. I would be interested in your thoughts on whether this makes a difference. I don't think modular

Re: [Zope] Re: [Zope-dev] Proposed installation changes for review

2003-03-11 Thread Guido van Rossum
The point I'm trying to make is that Zope has learned nothing from the UNIX philosophy. Yes, you can extend the config schema. You can grow new, better config files, of extraordinary magnitude. The all-powerful server will grow from being all-powerful to being all-powerful + n. It will be

Re: [Zope] Re: [Zope-dev] Proposed installation changes for review

2003-03-11 Thread Steve Alexander
But lo, still you won't be able to do something as mundane as limit the memory the FTP server is able to consume without affecting the HTTP server. You can do this with Zope. Just use ZEO and run one ZEO front-end for HTTP and one for FTP. -- Steve Alexander

Re: [Zope] Re: [Zope-dev] Proposed installation changes for review

2003-03-11 Thread Jeremy Hylton
I'm not dismissing it, and I think you need to go back and read what I wrote again very very carefully without reading anything into it. I'm not trying to imply that using environment variables to configure the current codebase will reduce the code footprint. Even if it did, because of the

Re: [Zope] Re: [Zope-dev] Proposed installation changes for review

2003-03-11 Thread Chris McDonough
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 15:22, Guido van Rossum wrote: That's why we're including the correct versions of ZODB and ZEO in Zope itself. That's already the case in Zope 2.6. Zope 2.6 doesn't yet include ZEO, at least I don't think it does. ;-) - C

Re: [Zope] Re: [Zope-dev] Proposed installation changes for review

2003-03-11 Thread Guido van Rossum
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 15:22, Guido van Rossum wrote: That's why we're including the correct versions of ZODB and ZEO in Zope itself. That's already the case in Zope 2.6. Zope 2.6 doesn't yet include ZEO, at least I don't think it does. ;-) Oops, I stand corrected. But Zope 2.7 does

Re: [Zope] Re: [Zope-dev] Proposed installation changes for review

2003-03-11 Thread Dan L. Pierson
--On Tuesday, March 11, 2003 03:43:33 PM -0500 Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 15:22, Guido van Rossum wrote: That's why we're including the correct versions of ZODB and ZEO in Zope itself. That's already the case in Zope 2.6. Zope 2.6 doesn't yet include ZEO,

Re: [Zope] Re: [Zope-dev] Proposed installation changes for review

2003-03-11 Thread Guido van Rossum
Oops, I stand corrected. But Zope 2.7 does include ZEO! Very good! But in that case, shouldn't the new Zope 2.7 install and startup stuff support it? Well, in a typical installation, you won't be running ZEO on the same machine as Zope, right? ZEO has its own install and config stuff,

Re: [Zope] Re: [Zope-dev] Proposed installation changes for review

2003-03-11 Thread Chris McDonough
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 16:12, Dan L. Pierson wrote: Very good! But in that case, shouldn't the new Zope 2.7 install and startup stuff support it? It does. It's just that the default setup is still to use a non-ZEOd FileStorage for your main database. But you can change options in the config

Re: [Zope] Re: [Zope-dev] Proposed installation changes for review

2003-03-11 Thread Guido van Rossum
Very good! But in that case, shouldn't the new Zope 2.7 install and startup stuff support it? It does. It's just that the default setup is still to use a non-ZEOd FileStorage for your main database. But you can change options in the config file to make it use a ZEO ClientStorage.

Re: [Zope] Re: [Zope-dev] Proposed installation changes for review

2003-03-11 Thread Chris McDonough
Cool! I didn't know. Do you think we should tell people that if they want to run a ZEO server to just run mkzeoinst from the software home resulting from Zope's make install and to edit zope.conf to use a ClientStorage? Chris, have you looked at ZEO/mkzeoinst.py? It uses a somewhat simpler

Re: [Zope] Re: [Zope-dev] Proposed installation changes for review

2003-03-11 Thread Guido van Rossum
Chris, have you looked at ZEO/mkzeoinst.py? It uses a somewhat simpler approach than the new Zope setup, but it creates a zeoctl script and a zeo.conf configuration file. Cool! I didn't know. Do you think we should tell people that if they want to run a ZEO server to just run

Re: [Zope] Re: [Zope-dev] Proposed installation changes for review

2003-03-11 Thread Paul Winkler
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 04:25:09PM -0500, Guido van Rossum wrote: Oops, I stand corrected. But Zope 2.7 does include ZEO! Very good! But in that case, shouldn't the new Zope 2.7 install and startup stuff support it? Well, in a typical installation, you won't be running ZEO on the

Re: [Zope] Re: [Zope-dev] Proposed installation changes for review

2003-03-11 Thread Jamie Heilman
Steve Alexander wrote: But lo, still you won't be able to do something as mundane as limit the memory the FTP server is able to consume without affecting the HTTP server. You can do this with Zope. Just use ZEO and run one ZEO front-end for HTTP and one for FTP. Sure, but then you carry

Re: [Zope] Re: [Zope-dev] Proposed installation changes for review

2003-03-11 Thread Jamie Heilman
Jeremy Hylton wrote: I don't know what work means in this context, but think the ZConfig project is thorough. In my checkout there are 180k of document, 180k of unit tests, and 136k of code. A measure of work that suggests that something with 0k of documentation and tests and 136k of code

Re: [Zope] Re: [Zope-dev] Proposed installation changes for review

2003-03-11 Thread Chris McDonough
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 17:48, Jamie Heilman wrote: How about, a lot of code/documentation was removed, and a lot of new code/documentation was added. Don't get hung up on the exact numbers, my point was, a lot of work has gone into simplifying the configuration process, but that the bigger

Re: [Zope] Re: [Zope-dev] Proposed installation changes for review

2003-03-11 Thread Jamie Heilman
Chris McDonough wrote: On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 17:48, Jamie Heilman wrote: How about, a lot of code/documentation was removed, and a lot of new code/documentation was added. Don't get hung up on the exact numbers, my point was, a lot of work has gone into simplifying the configuration

Re: [Zope] Re: [Zope-dev] Proposed installation changes for review

2003-03-11 Thread Paul Winkler
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:01:53AM -0500, Dan L. Pierson wrote: I don't see an equivalent to ./zctl.py debug anywhere. This starts up an interactive Python as a ZEO client with ZServer and Zope imported and app = Zope.app(). I use it constantly. Please? +1. I also use zctl.py debug

Re: [Zope] Re: [Zope-dev] Proposed installation changes for review

2003-03-10 Thread Paul Winkler
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 10:31:13PM -0500, Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote: Detaching, or daemonizing, will be a separate configuration parameter from everything else. great, that is exactly what i really want. -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com Look! Up in the sky! It's GARGANTUAN SKULL OF THE

Re: [Zope] Re: [Zope-dev] Proposed installation changes for review

2003-03-10 Thread Chris McDonough
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 19:51, Jamie Heilman wrote: - Environment variables are no longer used for configuration. I'll say it one more time. The roadmap[1] states under the Simplifying the Zope experience section: * simple tasks should be simple! Now, code required to extract a

Re: [Zope] Re: [Zope-dev] Proposed installation changes for review

2003-03-10 Thread Jamie Heilman
Chris McDonough wrote: Before dismissing it out of hand, I'd encourage you to try it out. I'm not dismissing it, and I think you need to go back and read what I wrote again very very carefully without reading anything into it. I'm not trying to imply that using environment variables to

Re: [Zope] Re: [Zope-dev] Proposed installation changes for review

2003-03-10 Thread Chris McDonough
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 21:42, Jamie Heilman wrote: Chris McDonough wrote: The point I'm trying to make is that Zope has learned nothing from the UNIX philosophy. Yes, you can extend the config schema. You can grow new, better config files, of extraordinary magnitude. The all-powerful server

Re: [Zope] Re: [Zope-dev] Proposed installation changes for review

2003-03-10 Thread Edward Muller
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 17:07, Paul Winkler wrote: A few questions / concerns listed below, otherwise it looks fine to me... On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 04:41:48PM -0500, Chris McDonough wrote: debug mode does this still toggle a whole bunch of things? production installation (on/off)

Re: [Zope] Re: [Zope-dev] Proposed installation changes for review

2003-03-10 Thread Fred L. Drake, Jr.
Edward Muller writes: Actually I like the way z2.py detaches or doesn't detach. Perhaps a separate config option would be good to control this. Detaching, or daemonizing, will be a separate configuration parameter from everything else. The basic mechanism will be that provided by the