Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Wed Jan 24 12:00:00 2007 UTC to Thu Jan 25 12:00:00 2007 UTC.
There were 7 messages: 7 from Zope Unit Tests.
Tests passed OK
---
Subject: OK : Zope-2.6 Python-2.1.3 : Linux
From: Zope Unit Tests
Date: Wed Jan 24 21:07:46 EST 2007
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
For their upcoming versions, Zope 2 consuming platforms such as Plone
are creating standard Zope3-style Python packages while still having
Zope 2 products around. This proposal aims at unifying the deployment
of products and Python packages into a Zope 2
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
This proposal aims at bringing Zope 2 a bit closer to Zope 3 by making
the widely used Acquisition API aware of Zope 3's __parent__ pointers.
This will alleviate the need of using Acquisition base classes in Zope 2
for every security-sensitive object,
On Thu, 2007-25-01 at 05:07 -0800, Martin Aspeli wrote:
I do wonder what would happen if you had both lib/python/Products/CMFCore
and Products/CMFCore, though. Would there be an explicit preference or would
Zope fail to start up with a conflict? I think I'd prefer the latter, in
fact, so that
Rocky Burt wrote:
On Thu, 2007-25-01 at 05:07 -0800, Martin Aspeli wrote:
I do wonder what would happen if you had both lib/python/Products/CMFCore
and Products/CMFCore, though. Would there be an explicit preference or would
Zope fail to start up with a conflict? I think I'd prefer the latter,
whit wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
This is awesome, and by that I don't mean the fact that we have a
plone buildout, but that we actually have Zope 2 recipes for
buildout. I hope they can be moved to svn.zope.org for further
development to benefit the whole
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
The point is that buildout *already* handles eggs. There's really no
point for having an extra layer on top of buildout. The zc.recipe.egg
recipe can install any egg (as a development one or not) in an automated
fashion, which is exactly what you'd want from a
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
whit wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
This is awesome, and by that I don't mean the fact that we have a
plone buildout, but that we actually have Zope 2 recipes for
buildout. I hope they can be moved to svn.zope.org for further
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:45:26 -0800, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Plone stinks!
It's like a fine cheese.
--
Alexander Limi ยท http://limi.net
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
whit wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
This is awesome, and by that I don't mean the fact that we have a
plone buildout, but that we actually have Zope 2 recipes for
buildout. I hope they can be moved to svn.zope.org for further
whit wrote:
Not everybody likes the activate dance. With buildout, you don't need
it. The recipes make sure that the scripts that get installed into the
buildout's 'bin' directory have the right PYTHONPATH set and have
access to the eggs you requested for the buildout.
is there really a
I hate to jump into this thread but I'll make a few comments.
On Jan 25, 2007, at 5:13 PM, whit wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
whit wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
This is awesome, and by that I don't mean the fact that we have
a plone
On Jan 25, 2007, at 5:09 PM, Ian Bicking wrote:
Whit pointed me to this thread.
Yeah, someone pointed me to it too. :)
I won't reply to specifics, but maybe
just describe what we're doing (and planning to do), and how
workingenv
differs from zc.buildout.
I'll avoid responding to
On Jan 25, 2007, at 5:44 PM, Ian Bicking wrote:
workingenv is development-centric, while buildout is deployment-
centric. This does not necessarily mean the best tool for the
job, because focusing on development and ignore deployment isn't a
good job, nor the other way around.
buildout
Jim Fulton wrote:
If *Plone* becomes incompatible with workingenv that'd be bothersome
I agree.
But if a buildout is incompatible, eh... who knows,
I would hope that buildout would not have to be compatible with
workingenv, whatever that means, in order for Plone to be compatible.
Then
Rob Miller wrote:
honestly, it seems to me that buildout tries to do too much. it's trying to
handle both repeatable deployment recipes AND providing a sandbox within which
to run things. there may not be a point to having an extra layer on top of
buildout, but buildout sure does seem to me
Jim Fulton wrote:
I actually tried to do this once before with zc.buildout, but I didn't
get far -- probably a result of lack of effort and lack of familiarity
with the overall stack. But I also recognize lots of the questions
about stuff like the zope.conf file and Data.fs that still seem
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Rob Miller wrote:
honestly, it seems to me that buildout tries to do too much. it's
trying to handle both repeatable deployment recipes AND providing a
sandbox within which to run things. there may not be a point to
having an extra layer on top of buildout, but
18 matches
Mail list logo
