Previously Dan Korostelev wrote:
2009/2/24 Shane Hathaway sh...@hathawaymix.org:
Log message for revision 97183:
New library for OpenID auth in Zope 3
Changed:
A zope.app.openidconsumer/
Wow, that's great! Finally an OpenID auth plugin is being developed!
plone.openid has been
Wow, that's great! Finally an OpenID auth plugin is being developed!
plone.openid has been out since August 2007, so it's hardly the first
OpenID auth implementation for Zope..
Well, yeah, but plone.openid uses Zope2 and Plone PAS while this is a
pure zope3 solution. However I'd like to see
Roger Ineichen wrote:
does someone have a good idea how we can handle an
Unauthorized error with JSON-RPC? Should we use an error
view concept and include a JavaScript method which can handle
a special error code/message from the server and show a kind
if login form?
Any hints or does
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:29 AM, Dan Korostelev nad...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/24 Baiju M mba...@zeomega.net:
Hi Dan,
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Dan Korostelev nad...@gmail.com wrote:
Log message for revision 97207:
Create infrastructure for z3c.mimetype
Changed:
A z3c.mimetype/
2009/2/24 Benji York be...@zope.com:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:29 AM, Dan Korostelev nad...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/24 Baiju M mba...@zeomega.net:
Hi Dan,
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Dan Korostelev nad...@gmail.com wrote:
Log message for revision 97207:
Create infrastructure for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Shane Hathaway wrote:
I've been working on the dependencies to and from zope.publisher.
Refining the dependencies should make it easier to integrate
zope.pipeline when it's ready.
I've noticed that nearly all packages that depend on
On Feb 24, 2009, at 8:53 AM, Dan Korostelev wrote:
2009/2/24 Benji York:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:29 AM, Dan Korostelev wrote:
Heh, nice trick with `z` :) Thank you.
A slight refinement:
svn mkdir path-to-repo/new-project{,trunk,tags,branches}
Using the `z` trick, that would be:
[Thomas asked me to review his zc.dict branch a while ago.]
Hi Thomas. Thank you for this work. It looks great. I do have
several comments below (from an abbreviated diff against the current
trunk).
Index: buildout.cfg
On Feb 24, 2009, at 3:08 AM, Shane Hathaway wrote:
I've been working on the dependencies to and from zope.publisher.
Refining the dependencies should make it easier to integrate
zope.pipeline when it's ready.
Can you elaborate on this a bit?
I've noticed that nearly all packages that
On Feb 24, 2009, at 9:26 AM, Tres Seaver wrote:
...
As for TestRequest, I could update the setup.py of various packages
that
currently depend on zope.publisher just for TestRequest. I would
make
zope.publisher a test-only requirement.
Frankly, any code using a testing stub which is
Hi Jim
Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] z3c.jsonrpc relase
Roger Ineichen wrote:
does someone have a good idea how we can handle an
Unauthorized error
with JSON-RPC? Should we use an error view concept and include a
JavaScript method which can handle a special error
code/message from
On Tuesday 24 February 2009, Shane Hathaway wrote:
I've noticed that nearly all packages that depend on zope.publisher
depend only on a few pieces of it:
- zope.publisher.interfaces
Can you give examples?
- zope.publisher.browser.Browser{View|Page}
-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Feb 24, 2009, at 9:26 AM, Tres Seaver wrote:
...
As for TestRequest, I could update the setup.py of various packages
that
currently depend on zope.publisher just for TestRequest. I would
make
zope.publisher a test-only
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Log message for revision 97183:
New library for OpenID auth in Zope 3
Changed:
A zope.app.openidconsumer/
One question: why is this in zope.app? I think there's a consensus we're
trying to pull as much from zope.app as possible.
Is this going to provide a
Hey Shane,
+1 on separating out zope.publisher.interfaces, as it seems low-hanging
fruit.
Shane Hathaway wrote:
It is less clear what we should do with BrowserView and BrowserPage.
They depend on zope.location, unlike the rest of zope.publisher, so they
don't really fit there. Perhaps
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Feb 24, 2009, at 3:08 AM, Shane Hathaway wrote:
I've been working on the dependencies to and from zope.publisher.
Refining the dependencies should make it easier to integrate
zope.pipeline when it's ready.
Can you elaborate on this a bit?
He has, though perhaps not
On Feb 24, 2009, at 11:12 AM, Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Feb 24, 2009, at 9:26 AM, Tres Seaver wrote:
...
As for TestRequest, I could update the setup.py of various packages
that
currently depend on zope.publisher just for
On Tuesday 24 February 2009, Jim Fulton wrote:
- - Using TestRequest involves pulling in all of zope.publisher, a
*big*
dependency; Shane wants to reduce such dependencies.
OK, I don't agree that zope.publisher is a big dependency, especially
for code that is meant to run in the
On Tuesday 24 February 2009, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Packages that depend on those classes usually more or less implicitly
depend on zope.publisher. So the split might be arbitrary for this
example.
My understanding is that Shane is working on an alternative publisher,
zope.pipeline, that
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Feb 24, 2009, at 11:12 AM, Tres Seaver wrote:
- - Using TestRequest involves pulling in all of zope.publisher, a
*big*
dependency; Shane wants to reduce such dependencies.
OK, I don't agree that zope.publisher is a big dependency, especially
for code that is
On Feb 24, 2009, at 11:46 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Feb 24, 2009, at 3:08 AM, Shane Hathaway wrote:
I've been working on the dependencies to and from zope.publisher.
Refining the dependencies should make it easier to integrate
zope.pipeline when it's ready.
Can you
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Feb 24, 2009, at 3:08 AM, Shane Hathaway wrote:
I've been working on the dependencies to and from zope.publisher.
Refining the dependencies should make it easier to integrate
zope.pipeline when it's ready.
Can you elaborate on this a bit?
I've been discussing
Hey,
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Stephan Richter
srich...@cosmos.phy.tufts.edu wrote:
In general I am worried that we are creating too many packages. However, here
is my order of importance:
1. Minimize dependencies.
2. Minimize packages.
+1
I think on the longer term better
Jim Fulton wrote:
I disagree strongly with many of the assertions made in these
articles. (I can't judge the pipeline proposal, since it is only
fleshed out in code.) While I do think zope.publisher has some
problems, they aren't the same problems that shane sees.
What are the problems
Hi there,
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
[snip]
P.S. See http://hannosch.eu/dependencies/zope/zope.publisher.svg for the
dependency graph ;)
That's a cool resource! (the general dependencies folder there)
Are you removing indirect dependencies before generating the graphs? I
think it is valuable
Hey,
Shane Hathaway wrote:
[snip]
After thinking this over last night, I realize that the idea to move
BrowserView, BrowserPage, and TestRequest is driven by the desire to
clarify the dependency graph. That's more complex than what I'm trying
to do and I don't think I need to do that for
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
[snip]
P.S. See http://hannosch.eu/dependencies/zope/zope.publisher.svg for the
dependency graph ;)
That's a cool resource! (the general dependencies folder there)
Are you removing indirect dependencies before generating the graphs?
Yep.
On Feb 24, 2009, at 12:33 PM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
P.S. See http://hannosch.eu/dependencies/zope/zope.publisher.svg for
the
dependency graph ;)
That's cool, although wildly inaccurate. One of the things wrong with
zope.publisher is that it depends on too many other things. It would
Martijn Faassen wrote:
The main problem I have with the zope publication machinery is that
after all these years of using it I *still* get lost in it regularly.
A more regular architecture that can be traced more easily would not
only allow better understanding on my part, but might also allow
On Feb 24, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Shane Hathaway wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Feb 24, 2009, at 3:08 AM, Shane Hathaway wrote:
I've been working on the dependencies to and from zope.publisher.
Refining the dependencies should make it easier to integrate
zope.pipeline when it's ready.
Can you
On Feb 24, 2009, at 1:55 PM, Shane Hathaway wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
The main problem I have with the zope publication machinery is that
after all these years of using it I *still* get lost in it regularly.
A more regular architecture that can be traced more easily would not
only allow
On Feb 24, 2009, at 3:17 PM, Shane Hathaway wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
One question: why is this in zope.app? I think there's a consensus
we're
trying to pull as much from zope.app as possible.
Is this going to provide a ZMI UI at all? If not, I'd suggest
putting it
in zope.*
I
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Tuesday 24 February 2009, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
+This version of Zope2 is compatible with and is based on Zope 3.5.
Zope 3.5 has not been released. ;-) In fact development has just started.
What
KGS version do you guys use?
This one:
Jim Fulton wrote:
I agree that it shouldn't go in zope.app. I believe I suggested
putting this in zc.openid, although I'm fine with zope.openid.
I'll rename it to zc.openid.
Shane
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
2009/2/24 Jim Fulton j...@zope.com:
I agree that it shouldn't go in zope.app. I believe I suggested
putting this in zc.openid, although I'm fine with zope.openid.
Why zc? I thought it's only for packages coming from the zope
corporation. Or does Shane works for ZC? :)
--
WBR, Dan Korostelev
Dan Korostelev wrote:
2009/2/24 Jim Fulton j...@zope.com:
I agree that it shouldn't go in zope.app. I believe I suggested
putting this in zc.openid, although I'm fine with zope.openid.
Why zc? I thought it's only for packages coming from the zope
corporation. Or does Shane works for ZC? :)
On Tuesday 24 February 2009, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
We are still in early alpha here. By the time we move on to beta, 3.5
will hopefully have stabilized a bit.
What is your time frame for Zope 2.12?
Regards,
Stephan
--
Stephan Richter
Web Software Design, Development and Training
Google me.
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Tuesday 24 February 2009, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
We are still in early alpha here. By the time we move on to beta, 3.5
will hopefully have stabilized a bit.
What is your time frame for Zope 2.12?
We'll have a first alpha in the next days. Beyond that we aim for a
2009/2/24 Shane Hathaway sh...@hathawaymix.org:
Dan Korostelev wrote:
2009/2/24 Jim Fulton j...@zope.com:
I agree that it shouldn't go in zope.app. I believe I suggested
putting this in zc.openid, although I'm fine with zope.openid.
Why zc? I thought it's only for packages coming from the
Hi there,
I hope in fact zope.app.* will soon become a dumping ground for
deprecated packages providing legacy ZMI support. Of course that will
need the consensus that the ZMI *is* legacy software. I think do we
already have a consensus that packages that provide other useful
functionality
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Feb 24, 2009, at 12:33 PM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
P.S. See http://hannosch.eu/dependencies/zope/zope.publisher.svg for
the
dependency graph ;)
That's cool, although wildly inaccurate.
What's wildly inaccurate about it? Missing transitive dependencies or
On Feb 24, 2009, at 5:19 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Feb 24, 2009, at 12:33 PM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
P.S. See http://hannosch.eu/dependencies/zope/zope.publisher.svg for
the
dependency graph ;)
That's cool, although wildly inaccurate.
What's wildly inaccurate
Hey,
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Jim Fulton j...@zope.com wrote:
[snip]
The graph only shows direct dependencies on zope.i18n and zope.security, but
there are many other direct dependencies.
Ah, agreed, yes, I think this is because of the transitive dependency
functionality removal
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hanno, would you consider also generating graphs for the grokcore.* packages?
Can you point me to a buildout or virtualenv-friendly way of getting an
environment with those? Than it should be rather trivial to do for me.
Hanno
Tres Seaver wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 17:46, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
Creating an instance from the SVN checkout itself doesn't work for me
either for the same reason. The created scripts try to use the general
Python
2009/2/25 Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com:
I hope in fact zope.app.* will soon become a dumping ground for
deprecated packages providing legacy ZMI support. Of course that will
need the consensus that the ZMI *is* legacy software. I think do we
already have a consensus that packages
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 17:46, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
Creating an instance from the SVN checkout itself doesn't work for me
either for the
Tres Seaver wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
I looked at this, but guessing or reliably getting to the zopepy script
wasn't possible. So I added an explicit option to the script instead and
documented it. You can now use:
bin/mkzopeinstance --python=bin/zopepy
on the SVN trunk. You can
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey,
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Jim Fulton j...@zope.com wrote:
[snip]
The graph only shows direct dependencies on zope.i18n and zope.security, but
there are many other direct dependencies.
Ah, agreed, yes, I think this is because of the transitive
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Tuesday 24 February 2009, Shane Hathaway wrote:
Brainstorming deeper: we could apply a naming convention where the
specification package is named with the suffix spec, so zope.location
would be split into zope.location and zope.locationspec.
what about
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 04:05, Shane Hathaway sh...@hathawaymix.org wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Tuesday 24 February 2009, Shane Hathaway wrote:
Brainstorming deeper: we could apply a naming convention where the
specification package is named with the suffix spec, so zope.location
would
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 04:05, Shane Hathaway sh...@hathawaymix.org wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Tuesday 24 February 2009, Shane Hathaway wrote:
Brainstorming deeper: we could apply a naming convention where the
52 matches
Mail list logo
