On Monday 08 December 2003 21:21, Paul Winkler wrote:
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 08:24:04PM +0100, Dieter Maurer wrote:
Maybe, my contribution has not been read. Thus, I try again:
/ + absolute_url(1) should implement the notion
of absolute-path URL reference (see RFC2396
Toby Dickenson wrote:
Because
dtml-var BASEPATH1/dtml-var absolute_url(1)
looks nicer than without the slash
?
OT: Seeing as that would actually have to be written
dtml-var REQUEST.BASEPATH1 html_quote/dtml-var absolute_url(1) html_quote
to get anywhere close to reliable and secure
Hi Stefan!
Stefan H. Holek wrote:
absolute_url(1) was broken (by my definition of broken) basically since
the introduction of VHM, which means the better part of 2 years.
Naturally, there is code now that relies on this (broken) behavior.
This does however not mean it should not be fixed!
Evan,
absolute_url(1) was broken (by my definition of broken) basically since
the introduction of VHM, which means the better part of 2 years.
Naturally, there is code now that relies on this (broken) behavior.
This does however not mean it should not be fixed!
The ugly part is that the
On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 09:35, Stefan H. Holek wrote:
[...]
So by my definition, the URL (relative or not) should *always* include
eventual _vh_xyz parts. If what one really needs is related to the
physical layout of the ZODB, there is always getPhysicalPath().
+1
URLs are in fact just
Leonardo Rochael Almeida wrote:
IMHO, this is broken behaviour. If you try to use an URL to locate an
object, the only sane behaviour is to feed this URL to an URL api
(probably in the REQUEST object) to get it mapped to a physical path.
(Un)RestrictedTraverse can do this, right? Or does that
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 12:35:38PM +0100, Stefan H. Holek wrote:
Note that this is one of my main points: It will be of little use to
document usage of BASEPATH1+absolute_url(1) when '/'+absolute_url(1)
appears to work (until it is far too late).
As a frequent (ab)user of
On Monday 08 December 2003 11:35, Stefan H. Holek wrote:
Note that this is one of my main points: It will be of little use to
document usage of BASEPATH1+absolute_url(1) when '/'+absolute_url(1)
appears to work (until it is far too late).
We can fix this social problem by providing an easy
Paul Winkler wrote:
As a frequent (ab)user of '/'+absolute_url(1), which did indeed
bite me when i deployed to an inside out apache setup,
I thought I'd try this out... I think you
meant BASEPATH1+'/'+absolute_url(1)?
I would like to know:
1. Exactly what is an inside out apache setup.
2. What is
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 05:58:12PM +0100, Lennart Regebro wrote:
Paul Winkler wrote:
As a frequent (ab)user of '/'+absolute_url(1), which did indeed
bite me when i deployed to an inside out apache setup,
I thought I'd try this out... I think you
meant BASEPATH1+'/'+absolute_url(1)?
I
Paul Winkler wrote:
See the About tab on VHM.
OK, good.
Inside out is mentioned
numerous times in this thread.
Yeah, I know, but I was getting confused to what it actually ment.
The result that I got by doing BASEPATH1+'/'+absolute_url(1)
as described in my previous message. I thought that was
Stefan H. Holek wrote at 2003-12-8 12:35 +0100:
...
The ugly part is that the behavior of absolute_url(1) changes suddenly
when the Vhost configuration starts to include inside-out parts
(_vh_xyz). This means that is is possible to break (seemingly) working
code by reconfiguring Apache. :-(
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 08:24:04PM +0100, Dieter Maurer wrote:
Maybe, my contribution has not been read. Thus, I try again:
/ + absolute_url(1) should implement the notion
of absolute-path URL reference (see RFC2396 section 5).
This means, that the receiving browser
Yuppie wrote:
Yes. getIcon() is the cause of the problem I see:
To access the ZMI I use this Apache rule:
ProxyPass /zope27
http://localhost:8080/VirtualHostBase/http/example.org:80/VirtualHostRoot/_vh_zope27
getIcon() for a folder in myCMFSite returns
'zope27/myCMFSite/folder_icon.gif'
(was
Eep. Maybe CMF's overridden catalog should just be given a reindexIndex
method instead of doing a capability check in Zope? More broadly, is it
worth embedding the capabilities check (which can never, ever go away)
into Zope itself or would it be better to change CMF to deal with the
API change?
Hi!
Chris McDonough wrote:
Eep. Maybe CMF's overridden catalog should just be given a reindexIndex
method instead of doing a capability check in Zope? More broadly, is it
worth embedding the capabilities check (which can never, ever go away)
into Zope itself or would it be better to change CMF
On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 07:33, Yuppie wrote:
Why can't the capabilities check go away in a future release? We could
add a deprecation warning in reindexIndex in case it detects the old
API.
That's true.
And of course CMF has to implement the new API. This is on the todo
list:
Chris McDonough wrote:
On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 07:33, Yuppie wrote:
But is it worth to have a CMF 1.4.3 release just to fix this issue?
Probably not, at least if your Zope checkin mentions the reason for the
capabilities test and the deprecation warning and maybe the earliest
date after which the
Hi Stefan!
Stefan H. Holek wrote:
No, no and 3 times no! The fix was done by Evan and is CORRECT.
absolute_url () does not (and should not!) know anything about CMF or
portals or whatever else!
'relative to site object' is quoted from the API documentation of
absolute_url(), see
Hi Lennart!
Lennart Regebro wrote:
def getVirtualRoot(self):
[...]
def getVirtualPath(self):
How are these related to URLPATHn, BASEPATHn? I'm to lazy to figure it
out myself;)
Quick, brutal, efficient, and usually dead wrong. That's me. :-)
//Lennart
Quick?
[...]
Please be careful with method names that might already be in use in some
products. Google says Silva uses a getVirtualRoot() method. Why not
using REQUEST variables?
... which is defined in an adapter-style class which is not
implementing Traversable itself, so there is no
Lennart Regebro wrote:
I will check this into head this evening, and unless people scream tomorrow
I will check it into the 2.7 branch.
Please hold off. I've been meaning to revisit this for a while, and I
have a bit of time to do so today and tomorrow. Also, virtual hosting
is properly the
From: Yuppie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quick?
Yeah, yeah. I was fast once I actually did it. :-)
Please be careful with method names that might already be in use in some
products. Google says Silva uses a getVirtualRoot() method.
And EasyPublisher uses all of these already.
Why not using REQUEST
From: Clemens Robbenhaar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please be careful with method names that might already be in use in
some
products. Google says Silva uses a getVirtualRoot() method.
... which is defined in an adapter-style class which is not
implementing Traversable itself, so there is no
Yuppie wrote:
You introduced that concept in Zope 2.7. The method docstring is part of
your change. Before Zope 2.7, absolute_url was defined different, worked
different and was used different in products maintained by ZC.
[snip]
I don't think the old API was better. I'm just saying that you
Hi Evan!
Evan Simpson wrote:
Gotcha. Grepping Zope's source and the Products I had to hand showed
only one use of absolute_url(1), in Draft.py, so I hoped that making the
implementation sane wouldn't affect too much.
Looking at the 1.4 branch of CMF, I see it in three places:
1.
26 matches
Mail list logo
