Reposting to zope-dev because no answers on the zope list.
Hi all, I have some questions.
Say I have a external method/product method return_vars which I call
from a form:
def return_vars(self, var=None, **kw):
return var: %s, kw: %s % (var,kw)
Is it correct that any passed form variable
On Wednesday 02 Oct 2002 9:31 am, Oliver Bleutgen wrote:
Hi all, I have some questions.
Say I have a external method/product method return_vars which I call
from a form:
def return_vars(self, var=None, **kw):
return var: %s, kw: %s % (var,kw)
Is it correct that any passed form
Toby Dickenson wrote:
On Wednesday 02 Oct 2002 9:31 am, Oliver Bleutgen wrote:
i.e. that ZPublisher will _not_ marshall the other variables into the
method call?
Would you really want all of them? All those that come from query string? http
headers? cookies? environment variables?
Only
Hi,
I've got a site running a CVS version of Zope taken from the 2.6 branch on
19/9/02. The site is running off Python 2.1.3 on a Debian box and also uses ZEO 1.0.
Yesterday, it appears this site died during a ZCatalog update as the last entry
in Z2.log was for the advanced catalog management
On Wednesday 02 Oct 2002 10:50 am, Chris Withers wrote:
Yesterday, it appears this site died during a ZCatalog update as the last
entry in Z2.log was for the advanced catalog management form. However,
there was no entry for the actual re-catalog.
That makes sense - Z2.log entries are made
I've got a ZEO server that's using Zope 2.5.1 (Python 2.1.3)
and ZEO 1.0. I try initiating a pack from the Database Management
Control Panel and it starts doing it's thing. The unpacked
database is 7.5GB and after writing about 5GB to Data.fs.pack
it seems to stop packing. lsof no longer shows
If so, why?
I see that Toby and you answered that.
Is this a python limitation?
No.
I played around with
co_varnames and python doesn't seem to offer a possibility to recognize
**kw as something special.
def foo(bar, **kw):
... pass
...
foo.func_code.co_flags
11
def
Is there anybody who thinks this is a bad idea?
Great idea, but this could also be a chance to fix the windows z2.py thang
and the installer ;)
As long as standalone Zope without ZEO would still be a startup option, Im
sure there are more things out there like the Plone Controller that might
A while ago I announced a new ZEO cache instrumentation feature, and
asked if anyone was interested in enabling this instrumentation in
their site. I got exactly zero responses... :-(
I'd like to repeat the offer. From the instrumentation data, it is
easy to determine the most effective cache
On Wednesday 02 Oct 2002 8:03 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
+1
IMHO, Zope releases should, in this scenario, be configured by default to
use a custom_zodb.py file with ClientStorage over a socket at startup,
That is a tempting idea.
Use of a TCP socket has security implications that make
Hmm... My thought: on Win32, bind the TCP port to the loopback address.
Since Win32 in _most_ cases is not a multi-user system, this would have the
general effect of keeping this from being an issue (unless you ran terminal
services on your Win32 server). This obviously doesn't solve security
On Wed, 2002-10-02 at 16:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
+1 for me too
IMHO, Zope releases should, in this scenario, be configured by default to
use a custom_zodb.py file with ClientStorage over a socket at startup,
making the default config of Zope one that uses ZEO.
I'm not sure about
On Wednesday 02 Oct 2002 8:50 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm... My thought: on Win32, bind the TCP port to the loopback address.
Since Win32 in _most_ cases is not a multi-user system, this would have the
general effect of keeping this from being an issue (unless you ran terminal
services
IMHO, Zope releases should, in this scenario, be configured by default to
use a custom_zodb.py file with ClientStorage over a socket at startup,
That is a tempting idea.
Use of a TCP socket has security implications that make it a bad
choice for a default, unless we implement mutual
On Wed, 2002-10-02 at 16:14, Guido van Rossum wrote:
A while ago I announced a new ZEO cache instrumentation feature, and
asked if anyone was interested in enabling this instrumentation in
their site. I got exactly zero responses... :-(
I'd like to repeat the offer.
We (Hiperlógica) have
I've been around the Zope/Python scene for many years. One thing I see this
group suffer I believe if from the groupthink mentality. Imho Alexander
Limi 2 cents worth demonstrated Erik's point perfectly. applaud the
effort made with plone. I believe it to be a spoon in which we can spoon
Hi Ropas-Zopas,
Just my 2 cents. I like plone and everything, but should'nt even the plone
developers be working on improving and making ZPT faster? Seems to me in
their rush to make this Plone product, they say they will make it compatible
and faster, but I'm appalled, Yes I said it :-)
Hi James.
Firstly lets address your subject. ZopeZen.org is slower. Why is that?
- There is a lot more work being done to render a page in Plone
- There is less caching being done, I havent optimized it as much as the old
site was
- The BSD memory leak in Python 2.1.3 is not helping
- More
LRA == Leonardo Rochael Almeida [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
LRA The last two installations belong to the same client, and are
LRA both experiencing a problem that I believe is related to ZEO
LRA latency. Both sites depend heavily on a single ZCatalog for
LRA operation (one ZCatalog hit in
Hi Andy,
Thanks for you kind explanation. I may have been premature in my
assessment the new Zopezen.org. I see your point on the various roles
individuals can play in the open-source world. I also believe that by you
embracing plone so deeply gives the project much more weight and
Thanks for you kind explanation. I may have been premature in my
assessment the new Zopezen.org.
Well the proof is the in the pudding, give me a bit of time and we'll see.
But with some good people switching channels,
will Zope still end up a major player in the market?
Unfortunately
21 matches
Mail list logo
