Python 2.2 (was Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!)

2002-03-18 Thread Matt Behrens
Lennart Regebro wrote: Are you planning to up the python version to 2.2? Because in that case I'd be happy to put in Authentication support in MailHost. Smtplib.py in 2.1.2 doesn't support authentication. I don't know how people are currently using Zope with 2.2. There is probably some

Re: Python 2.2 (was Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!)

2002-03-18 Thread Gary Poster
In my own casual experimentation, Zope worked okay by itself on Mandrake Linux 8.2b4 with Python 2.2, but ZEO refused to work. For what it's worth. Gary - Original Message - From: Matt Behrens [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lennart Regebro wrote: Are you planning to up the python version to

Re: Python 2.2 (was Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!)

2002-03-18 Thread Lennart Regebro
I don't know how people are currently using Zope with 2.2. Well, I guess I could make a check for the Zope version, so not to tie up Zope 2.6 to Python 2.2. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-17 Thread Lennart Regebro
Are you planning to up the python version to 2.2? Because in that case I'd be happy to put in Authentication support in MailHost. Smtplib.py in 2.1.2 doesn't support authentication. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-15 Thread Adam Manock
FYI, everyone who's following this: I have hijacked http://dev.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Proposals/InstallationAndConfiguration for this purpose. :-) Awesome. Exactly how I'd like the default zope install to be structured. :-) Adam ___ Zope-Dev

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-14 Thread Behrens Matt - Grand Rapids
Behrens Matt - Grand Rapids wrote: This isn't exciting by any means unless you're one of the people who package Zope up for distribution, or maybe you're one of the people who manage lots of little Zopes on one system; but I'd like to revive the grand unified Zope installation and control

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-07 Thread Adrian Hungate
: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 3:47 PM Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors! Hi: I would like to propose my Paste Reference/symlink hack for inclusion into Zope 2.6 C U! -- Mario Valente ___ Zope-Dev maillist

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-07 Thread Mario Valente
Hi: I think that the possibility of having inactive objects, objects that are instantied, exist in the ZODB and in the folder tree but are invisibile to the Zope machinery (acquisition, rendering, itemizing) by setting/unsettting a property flag would also be something of extreme

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-06 Thread Jerome Alet
On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Joachim Werner wrote: - All the basic API (like store, delete, edit, ...) must be free of HTTP specifics, so that I can modifiy content either over a web frontend or over WebDAV, FTP, ... - and even via a fat client application like a wxPython application. Currently that

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-06 Thread Mario Valente
Hi: I would like to propose my Paste Reference/symlink hack for inclusion into Zope 2.6 C U! -- Mario Valente ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-06 Thread kapil thangavelu
On Wednesday 06 March 2002 04:58 am, Joachim Werner wrote: Hi! What I'd expect from Zope 2.6 depends a bit on when Zope 3 will be available. If we are talking about a couple of months, I'd prefer only having bug fixes in 2.5.x (and no 2.6 at all). If we are talking about more than half a

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-06 Thread Stephan Richter
At 02:10 PM 3/6/2002 +0100, Jerome Alet wrote: On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Joachim Werner wrote: - All the basic API (like store, delete, edit, ...) must be free of HTTP specifics, so that I can modifiy content either over a web frontend or over WebDAV, FTP, ... - and even via a fat client

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-06 Thread Dieter Maurer
Joachim Werner writes: - Storage should be completely separate from the data model. It should be possible to design a content class and then store it either in ZODB, the file system, an RDBMS or an LDAP server or whatever. Isn't that already possible (implement your alternative storage that

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-05 Thread Christian Theune
+1 for cookie crumbler Ah right, i didn't look at that before, thats what i thought of. And with the mention of the Zope Expansion Kit i think this really should go into core (or somewhere very next to id), including an option to be created with a standard user folder automatically. On Sat,

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-05 Thread Tim Hicks
See below This isn't exciting by any means unless you're one of the people who package Zope up for distribution, or maybe you're one of the people who manage lots of little Zopes on one system; but I'd like to revive the grand unified Zope installation and control proposal that has been

(OT) Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-04 Thread seb bacon
On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 03:55, Anthony Baxter wrote: I think the performance hit is really quite minimal for two if statements at the entry and exit point(s) of a function to turn the behaviour on and off. I'm not convinced. Those small increments of performance really add up. Look at how

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-04 Thread seb bacon
On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 03:47, Richard Jones wrote: On Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:40, Casey Duncan wrote: I agree, monkey patches are perfect for this. That makes them totally transparent to the application and Zope for that matter. There's nothing wrong with them in the right application. My

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-04 Thread Chris Withers
seb bacon wrote: Yes - I would bet the performace difference is in the order of hundredths of a second. Which I would prefer not to have added to the several hundred other hundredths-of-a-second little differences-that-people-thought-wouldn't-make-a-difference that have been added to Zope

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-04 Thread seb bacon
On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 10:47, Chris Withers wrote: seb bacon wrote: Yes - I would bet the performace difference is in the order of hundredths of a second. Which I would prefer not to have added to the several hundred other hundredths-of-a-second little

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-03 Thread Chris Withers
Gary Poster wrote: If there is any interest in spiffing the Virtual Host Folder up for inclusion in Zope 2.6, I'll do the work. It requires Ordered Folder 0.5.1, and needs just a bit more spiffing. Why does it require ordered folder? What does that have to do with virtual hosting? cheers,

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-03 Thread Richard Jones
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 21:25, seb bacon wrote: Absolutely ... and I would also like to see Richards excellent Call Profiler service become part of the core. I'm definitely putting the profiler into 2.6 - there's just an open question of where it gets put. The question was asked on

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-03 Thread Andy McKay
I'd like to see the ZSyncer Product, or a variant thereof, included in Zope by default. That is, I'd like Synchronization, to a be a default property of Zope objects, so that objects/content can be pushed and pulled between two Zope installations. Thanks for the enthusiasm but its still too

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-03 Thread Andy McKay
Ive never really understood the motivation for wanting https support direct in Zope ZServer isnt robust enough to be exposed to the raw internet without risk. Today (and perhaps for the forseeable future, because its not clear that Zope want to take on the responsibility of ZServer may

RE: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-03 Thread sean . upton
Perhaps synchronization over ZEO as well as XML-RPC? Thoughts? Sean -Original Message- From: Andy McKay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 5:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors! I'd like to see

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-03 Thread Anthony Baxter
seb bacon wrote [CallProfiler] FWIW, my own opinion is that it should not take the 'MonkeyPatch' approach. Why? Any other approach means a slowdown in the Zope code regardless of whether profiling is turned on or off... monkeypatching means you end up with zero slowdown when not profiling.

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-03 Thread Casey Duncan
--- Anthony Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: seb bacon wrote [CallProfiler] FWIW, my own opinion is that it should not take the 'MonkeyPatch' approach. Why? Any other approach means a slowdown in the Zope code regardless of whether profiling is turned on or off... monkeypatching

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-03 Thread Richard Jones
On Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:40, Casey Duncan wrote: I agree, monkey patches are perfect for this. That makes them totally transparent to the application and Zope for that matter. There's nothing wrong with them in the right application. My main concern is the use of monkeypatching in the core

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-03 Thread Gary Poster
From: Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gary Poster wrote: If there is any interest in spiffing the Virtual Host Folder up for inclusion in Zope 2.6, I'll do the work. It requires Ordered Folder 0.5.1, and needs just a bit more spiffing. Why does it require ordered folder? What does

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-03 Thread Chris Withers
Anthony Baxter wrote: seb bacon wrote [CallProfiler] FWIW, my own opinion is that it should not take the 'MonkeyPatch' approach. Why? Any other approach means a slowdown in the Zope code regardless of whether profiling is turned on or off... monkeypatching means you end up with

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-02 Thread Christian Theune
On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 03:00:10PM +, Toby Dickenson wrote: Are there any common scenarios which need the protection given by https, but do not need the protection given by a front-end-proxy? Yes, running zope in intranet environments where the connection to a localhost proxy is not

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-02 Thread Christian Theune
On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 07:53:35AM -0500, Paul Everitt wrote: A gentle reminder on some of the posts in this thread. Please don't respond with I'd really like some good idea. Respond with I'm willing to do the work for some good idea. That's part of the point with Brian's note. You

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-02 Thread Shane Hathaway
Christian Theune wrote: On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 07:53:35AM -0500, Paul Everitt wrote: A gentle reminder on some of the posts in this thread. Please don't respond with I'd really like some good idea. Respond with I'm willing to do the work for some good idea. That's part of the point with

RE: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-02 Thread Gary Poster
: Friday, March 01, 2002 2:54 AM To: Brian Lloyd; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors! I wholeheartedly agree that 2.6 needs to be significantly a community effort. While I know that many people are engaged in the Zope 3 effort

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-01 Thread Dario Lopez-Kästen
I'd like to see ZSQL methods altered so that bind variables could be used in SQL queries. This would improve SQL operations for at least Oracle, which is the one db I know of that uses bind variables to speed it's querie-management. This is filed as a bugreport in the collector previously but

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-01 Thread seb bacon
Absolutely ... and I would also like to see Richards excellent Call Profiler service become part of the core. I'm definitely putting the profiler into 2.6 - there's just an open question of where it gets put. The question was asked on zope-coders, and got no response. I figure if

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-01 Thread seb bacon
I'd like to see the ZSyncer Product, or a variant thereof, included in Zope by default. That is, I'd like Synchronization, to a be a default property of Zope objects, so that objects/content can be pushed and pulled between two Zope installations. I would use ZCVSFolder or somewhat

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-01 Thread Steve Alexander
seb bacon wrote: I think the use cases driving synchronisation requirements are not yet sufficiently understood. Agreed, it's a feature that many people need, but I get the impression it would be premature to include ZSyncer as is in Zope without more detailed planning. On the other hand,

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-01 Thread Chris Withers
Steve Alexander wrote: Yeah... maybe we need a standard Zope Expansion Kit that is a cohesive package of products that aren't in the Zope core, but are officially sanctioned and versioned and released alongside versions of Zope. I thought that's what the /Products directory in the standard

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-01 Thread Chris McDonough
Everitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Behrens Matt - Grand Rapids [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 7:53 AM Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors! +1, and I say that knowing that it means I have to help. I'm willing

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-01 Thread marc lindahl
I would say, make SSL part of the standard z2.py, so you can turn on/off, specify address, etc. of https ports just as you do with http ports (and of course integrated with siteaccess2, etc.) ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-01 Thread Toby Dickenson
On Fri, 01 Mar 2002 09:48:08 -0500, marc lindahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would say, make SSL part of the standard z2.py, so you can turn on/off, specify address, etc. of https ports just as you do with http ports (and of course integrated with siteaccess2, etc.) Ive never really understood

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-01 Thread Jeffrey P Shell
On 3/1/02 7:30 AM, Chris McDonough [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd suggest starting with the combination of Evan's zopemake and zctl scripts. One thing that zopemake could be extended with is an autoconf-style configure that figures out where the appropriate version of Python is, which C

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-03-01 Thread Andy Dustman
On Fri, 2002-03-01 at 04:16, Dario Lopez-Kästen wrote: I'd like to see ZSQL methods altered so that bind variables could be used in SQL queries. +1, even though MySQL doesn't bind variables (yet, apparently in the works for 4.0). Another thing I would like (and could probably write) is an

[Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-02-28 Thread Brian Lloyd
Hi all - Paul sent a note to zope-coders some time back fishing for some feedback regarding planning for a Zope 2.6 (excepted): I propose that planning for a 2.6 focus on the following thoughts: 1) This release is more about community-contributed work than ZC-contributed work. ...

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-02-28 Thread Behrens Matt - Grand Rapids
Brian Lloyd wrote: Let's get a discussion started to define 2.6. This isn't exciting by any means unless you're one of the people who package Zope up for distribution, or maybe you're one of the people who manage lots of little Zopes on one system; but I'd like to revive the grand unified

Re: [Zope-Coders] Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-02-28 Thread Casey Duncan
On Thursday 28 February 2002 04:03 pm, you wrote: Brian Lloyd wrote: Let's get a discussion started to define 2.6. This isn't exciting by any means unless you're one of the people who package Zope up for distribution, or maybe you're one of the people who manage lots of little Zopes

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-02-28 Thread Chris McDonough
I've modified HTTPResponse and ZServer/HTTPResponse.py to allow for gzip content encoding on a response-by-response basis. I'm mostly using this with xml-rpc, but it could be generalized and combined with a gzipper- cache manager. I'd like this. It would help with the lack of

RE: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-02-28 Thread sean . upton
2.6 planning - call for contributors! I've modified HTTPResponse and ZServer/HTTPResponse.py to allow for gzip content encoding on a response-by-response basis. I'm mostly using this with xml-rpc, but it could be generalized and combined with a gzipper- cache manager. I'd like this. It would

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-02-28 Thread John Ziniti
Let's get a discussion started to define 2.6 I'd like to see the ZSyncer Product, or a variant thereof, included in Zope by default. That is, I'd like Synchronization, to a be a default property of Zope objects, so that objects/content can be pushed and pulled between two Zope

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-02-28 Thread Eric Roby
Let's get a discussion started to define 2.6 I'd like to see the ZSyncer Product, or a variant thereof, included in Zope by default. That is, I'd like Synchronization, to a be a default property of Zope objects, so that objects/content can be pushed and pulled between two

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-02-28 Thread Richard Jones
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 15:17, Eric Roby wrote: Let's get a discussion started to define 2.6 I'd like to see the ZSyncer Product, or a variant thereof, included in Zope by default. That is, I'd like Synchronization, to a be a default property of Zope objects, so that

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-02-28 Thread Andre Schubert
Hi, John Ziniti schrieb: Let's get a discussion started to define 2.6 I'd like to see the ZSyncer Product, or a variant thereof, included in Zope by default. That is, I'd like Synchronization, to a be a default property of Zope objects, so that objects/content can be pushed

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!

2002-02-28 Thread Lennart Regebro
I wholeheartedly agree that 2.6 needs to be significantly a community effort. While I know that many people are engaged in the Zope 3 effort, we also need to get some people engaged on defining and producing 2.6 in the interim. There is not much on the plan right now, so the possibilities