Again, monkey patching doesn't modify source code, so I don't know
what would be getting written into tmp.
Comments?
Didn't someone else make a proposal (with code) to handle this?
Was it PatchKit?
Yup, and it is more than a proposal, it is a full blown product (
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 08:46:41AM +0100, Adrian Hungate wrote:
Again, monkey patching doesn't modify source code, so I don't know
what would be getting written into tmp.
Comments?
Didn't someone else make a proposal (with code) to handle this?
Was it PatchKit?
Yup, and it is
...
--
Adrian Hungate
EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: http://www.haqa.co.uk
- Original Message -
From: Jim Penny [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Adrian Hungate [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] A Modest Proposal Concerning Monkey
, August 14, 2002 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] A Modest Proposal Concerning Monkey Patches
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 03:48:51PM +0100, Adrian Hungate wrote:
Hmm... ok, now I see what you are talking about, however, you are
talking
about modifying a DTMLFile object - I am not sure of any reliable
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Jim Penny wrote:
[Snip]
It looks as though what is needed is fish-bowl proposal to redesign the way
ObjectManager handles and displays rows for specific object types - the
requirement being that this be third-party-pluggable (For want of a better
term). (No that was
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 05:08:21PM +0100, Adrian Hungate wrote:
One question about zshell though, what is the box that is added left of the
add product pulldown? Is it something that ABSOLUTELY has to be on the
contents listing (i.e. something to do with creating or maintaining the
objects
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 09:33:02PM +0200, Jerome Alet wrote:
registering a ZMI plugin would be as simple as :
root.registerZMIPlugin(top|line|bottom, self)
or :
root.registerTopZMIPlugin(self)
root.registerLineZMIPlugin(self)
There is a large problem looming with Moneky Patches. The problem is
that monkey patches are so Highlander. There can be Only One.
For example, there are at least five or six products that monkey patch
manage_main. Each simply replaces whatever manage_main exists at the
time of instantation,
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Jim Penny wrote:
B) If so, he makes whatever checks he can to determine if he can
update the file in $(INSTANCE_HOME)/tmp.
Updating a (disk based) file and monkey patching don't seem to
go together in my mind. I'm really unclear what you are proposing
here.
I know I will regret that I said this, but this is really symptomatic of a
more basic need. The need to extend manage_main.
This has been identified as a hot spot for products to monkey with. Why
don't we go right to the source and make manage_main extensible so that
monkey patching it isn't
On Tue Aug 13, 2002, Jim Penny wrote:
There is a large problem looming with Moneky Patches. The problem is
that monkey patches are so Highlander. There can be Only One.
For example, there are at least five or six products that monkey patch
manage_main. Each simply replaces whatever
On Tuesday 13 August 2002 02:10 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue Aug 13, 2002, Jim Penny wrote:
There is a large problem looming with Moneky Patches. The problem is
that monkey patches are so Highlander. There can be Only One.
For example, there are at least five or six products that
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Casey Duncan wrote:
That is why it would be beneficial to make the thing being patched extensible
in the first place thereby alleviating the need to patch it.
This is a very good point. Now that we have comitters outside
zope corp, Product authors probably ought to think
13 matches
Mail list logo
