Hi there.
The exclude directive provided by zc.configuration package is easy
to use and straightforward. I think it's used almost in every
zope-based application setup. Its implementation is very small and
fits great in zope.configuration's standard directives. So I'd like to
propose to move it
Hi there,
One issue I have with using paste deploy's pipeline configuration for
endware is that such configuration sometimes really wants to be part
of a library. I.e. I don't want to configure a tower of endwares each
time I write an application, I want to reuse some premade configuration
Can anyone please verify this change. As it is related to license,
I thought just get confirmation from here.
Regards,
Baiju M
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Baiju M baiju.m.m...@gmail.com wrote:
Log message for revision 97294:
The zope-lice...@zope.org address is bouncing.
So, replaced
Hey,
Dan Korostelev wrote:
The exclude directive provided by zc.configuration package is easy
to use and straightforward. I think it's used almost in every
zope-based application setup.
I highly doubt so; I don't find myself using it a lot myself, for
instance. :)
Its implementation is
2009/2/26 Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com:
Dan Korostelev wrote:
The exclude directive provided by zc.configuration package is easy
to use and straightforward. I think it's used almost in every
zope-based application setup.
I highly doubt so; I don't find myself using it a lot myself,
2009/2/26 Roger Ineichen d...@projekt01.ch:
(note though that including an extra meta.zcml can be
avoided if you make use of the z3c.autoinclude library)
Oh, cool.
Now we only need to find out how to write an z3c.autoexlude
and a z3c.autooverride library ;-)
:-)) +1
--
WBR, Dan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
My suggestion would be foundation-i...@zope.org, since the ZF is the
publisher of the ZPL at this point.
jens
On Feb 26, 2009, at 12:32 , Baiju M wrote:
Can anyone please verify this change. As it is related to license,
I thought just get
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Wed Feb 25 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Thu Feb 26 12:00:00 2009 UTC.
There were 6 messages: 6 from Zope Tests.
Tests passed OK
---
Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux
From: Zope Tests
Date: Wed Feb 25 20:23:18 EST 2009
URL:
Hey,
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Dan Korostelev nad...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
(note though that including an extra meta.zcml can be avoided if you
make use of the z3c.autoinclude library)
Yep, I know about z3c.autoinclude, but I don't like it, as it makes
things more implicit and it
Hi there,
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Roger Ineichen d...@projekt01.ch wrote:
Now we only need to find out how to write an z3c.autoexlude
and a z3c.autooverride library ;-)
:)
Just so that this doesn't get misinterpreted, autoinclude includes
packages just like manual include statements
Hi Martijn
Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] Proposal: merge zc.configuration's
exclude directiveinto zope.configuration.
Hi there,
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Roger Ineichen
d...@projekt01.ch wrote:
Now we only need to find out how to write an z3c.autoexlude and a
z3c.autooverride
Chris McDonough wrote:
[snip]
While I think that would be a good thing, I do want to mention that it's not
really the point of the whatsitdoing benchmark.
Right, agreed. I think it's more important to make the Zope Framework
more comprehensible than it is to improve its performance. Its
On Feb 26, 2009, at 5:26 AM, Dan Korostelev wrote:
Hi there.
The exclude directive provided by zc.configuration package is easy
to use and straightforward. I think it's used almost in every
zope-based application setup. Its implementation is very small and
fits great in
2009/2/26 Jim Fulton j...@zope.com:
and make the exclude directive
from zc.configuration point to the zope.configuration's implementation
making the original place deprecated (however I guess the whole
zc.configuration package should't be deprecated as it's intended to be
a common place for
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 7:07 AM, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com wrote:
Hey,
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Dan Korostelev nad...@gmail.com wrote:
Yep, I know about z3c.autoinclude, but I don't like it, as it makes
things more implicit and it also
Yes, automation makes things more
Can someone who is familiar with z3c.pt check this out, please? It
looks like the z3c.pt.expressions.ContentProviderTraverser somehow
receives wrong context/request/view objects.
Also, the ContentProviderTraverser should fire the BeforeUpdateEvent
before updating the content provider. And what
16 matches
Mail list logo
