--On Saturday, March 17, 2001 08:46:26 PM -0500 Fred Wilson Horch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think lossless serialization should be an explicit goal. If a
developer doesn't provide specific object serialization methods, then a
default method (perhaps XML) should be invoked that is
"Dan L. Pierson" wrote in part:
I think lossless serialization should be an explicit goal.
What is lossless vs. non-lossless?
If the filesystem representation dumps evrything required to recreate a
working copy of the catalog after a (perhaps lengthy) computation but
doesn't actually
Hi guys,
some people have asked me to use INSTANCE_HOME instead of SOFTWARE_HOME,
which breaks their products on debian distros.
Now, I'm not sure that won't break other systems if I change it; anyone
care to share?
Thanks,
Morten
___
Zope-Dev
Brian Lloyd wrote:
Is there a simple method like getAcquistionPath() that tells
me how I was
required without having to do some sub optimal REQUEST
variable hacking /
string matching?
I don't know of any (but that doesn't mean there isn't one). But
couldn't you walk up the
I want to strip off the SERVER_URL of an absolute url (which I have as a
string) without doing string manipulations. Is there some built-in function
to do this? So what I'm looking for is actual the reverse of absolute_url.
The request variable PATH_INFO looks very good, but I don't know whether
Chris McDonough wrote:
Fred Horch wrote:
My major question is I don't understand the design
decision to allow lossy representation. [...]
I think lossless serialization should be an explicit
goal. If a developer doesn't provide specific object serialization
methods, then a default
On Sun, 18 Mar 2001, Dan L. Pierson wrote:
representation of Chris' proposal. FSDump has no read capability. At
IPC9, someone
from DC told me that Tres was worried that read capability would be a giant
security
hole. I can't remember if that someone was Tres or not. IMHO, the
On Sun, 18 Mar 2001, Chris McDonough wrote:
"Potentially lossy" also doesn't mean "leaky". It just
means that folks who expose their objects to this sort of
serialization can choose their own format, and if it
represents the object adequately for their own use in both
directions, it's good
Fred Wilson Horch wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
Fred Horch wrote:
My major question is I don't understand the design
decision to allow lossy representation. [...]
I think lossless serialization should be an explicit
goal. If a developer doesn't provide specific object serialization
Fred wrote:
I guess I'm voting to rewrite this sentence:
If this API is not implemented by the developer, the
result is
a default serialized representation (perhaps XML
pickle) on a
per-object basis
I think this makes sense.
Maybe the issue is semantics. I think
Thanks, Dieter. You're right, I definitely wouldn't want to use this
solution. I was hoping for something that can be done inside the
product :-(
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Itai Tavor writes:
... abbreviated references to sibling subproducts ...
Is there any way to set this up so imports
Hi.
Is
http://www.zope.org/Members/hathawsh/PythonProductTutorial/index_html?pp=1
still valid, or have things changed since it was written?
/Magnus
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No
12 matches
Mail list logo
