[Zope-dev] How to use UserTrack product?
Hi, I am very newbee to Zope. In my Zope application I want to integrate UserTrack product (we dont use plone). I placed the UserTrack folder inside the Products directory, and created an instance of UserTrack inside some of the other zope products, as follows: u = UserTrack() logger(str(u.listUserActivities())) But the list is coming as empty. I think the place where I have initialised the UserTrack instance is wrong. In the Readme file which comes along with UserTrack says that, UserTrack lists the currently active authenticated users that are logged into zope and accesses an object below the folder where the UserTrack instance resides. So I guess I need to write initialize in some of the ZMI folder object, but which one?. Can anyone please help me. Thanks Roopesh ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] SVN: z3c.pt/trunk/TODO.txt
Chris McDonough wrote: Log message for revision 90974: Added: z3c.pt/trunk/TODO.txt === --- z3c.pt/trunk/TODO.txt (rev 0) +++ z3c.pt/trunk/TODO.txt 2008-09-09 00:03:08 UTC (rev 90974) @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +- Make e.g. tal:block tal:foo / and metal:foo metal:define-macro/ etc. + work Are we sure we want this? It's (afaik) not correct XML; but maybe an exception should be raised, rather than no interpretation. \malthe ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] SVN: z3c.pt/trunk/TODO.txt
On Tuesday 09 September 2008, Malthe Borch wrote: If the element belongs to some namespace, then attributes from this namespace should be native to it. But I couldn't find any documentation to support that this is a strict requirement. Perhaps it should be allowed, then. It's not strict. It's a shortcut. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter Web Software Design, Development and Training Google me. Zope Stephan Richter ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] SVN: z3c.pt/trunk/TODO.txt
2008/9/9 Stephan Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It's not strict. It's a shortcut. No it's other way around. tal:block for= / is the short-cut for tal:block tal:for= /. Previously only the short-cut was allowed; this has been changed in the most recent release of z3c.pt. \malthe ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] zope.component: calling an Interface and calling queryAdapter give differing results
Chris Withers wrote at 2008-9-8 18:34 +0100: ... There's the backward-compatibility issue, which is a showstopper. There's plenty of code that does this: adapter = package.interfaces.IFoo(object, None) Changing the signature as you describe would break all code that does this. How about a new major revision of zope.interface then? I fear that would be a bit drastic -- for a mostly cosmetic change. But interfaces might grow an additional method, e.g. adapt, which could get the new signature. The syntax would be a bit more cumbersome -- but on the other hand, it would be more explicit :-) -- Dieter ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] zope.component: calling an Interface and calling queryAdapter give differing results
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The syntax would be a bit more cumbersome -- but on the other hand, it would be more explicit :-) Seems to me zope.component.getMultiAdapter(...) is sufficient as-is, and shares the benefit of explicitness. That's sufficient for me. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. fdrake at gmail.com Chaos is the score upon which reality is written. --Henry Miller ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] How to use UserTrack product?
Rupesh P Raj wrote at 2008-9-9 13:41 +0530: I am very newbee to Zope. In my Zope application I want to integrate UserTrack product (we dont use plone). I placed the UserTrack folder inside the Products directory, and created an instance of UserTrack inside some of the other zope products, as follows: u = UserTrack() logger(str(u.listUserActivities())) But the list is coming as empty. I think the place where I have initialised the UserTrack instance is wrong. In the Readme file which comes along with UserTrack says that, UserTrack lists the currently active authenticated users that are logged into zope and accesses an object below the folder where the UserTrack instance resides. So I guess I need to write initialize in some of the ZMI folder object, but which one?. Can anyone please help me. I do not know UserTrack and how it works. However, the README tells you, that UserTrack must reside in a folder. This means that it must be integrated into the Zope site hierarchy. Usually, you put objects into a folder in the ZMI via the so called add list. This is the selection field to the left of the Add button in the Contents tab of folder like objects. You can also do this programmatically. The idiom is destination.manage_addProduct[defining_product].constructor(args) Here defining_product is the product that defines the new object's class, constructor is the function that create the object and args are the arguments the constructor needs (usually the id of the object to be created, optionally a title). An example would be: destination.manage_addProduct['OFSP'].manage_addFile(id, content) -- Dieter ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] zope.component: calling an Interface and calling queryAdapter give differing results
El 9 Sep 2008, a las 20:37 , Dieter Maurer escribió: Chris Withers wrote at 2008-9-8 18:34 +0100: ... There's the backward-compatibility issue, which is a showstopper. There's plenty of code that does this: adapter = package.interfaces.IFoo(object, None) Changing the signature as you describe would break all code that does this. How about a new major revision of zope.interface then? I fear that would be a bit drastic -- for a mostly cosmetic change. I agree. But interfaces might grow an additional method, e.g. adapt, which could get the new signature. The syntax would be a bit more cumbersome -- but on the other hand, it would be more explicit :-) I don't think it would be too cumbersome. While IMHO elegant, the current syntax of calling an interface to adapt isn't actually self- explanatory. I've frequently observed people tripping over this, specially when you have an IFoo interface and a Foo class -- which is quite common --, then IFoo(obj) and Foo(obj) differ only by one character. With your suggestion, it would be IFoo.adapt(obj) vs. Foo(obj), making the difference quite obvious. So overall I'm +1 ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] zope.component: calling an Interface and calling queryAdapter give differing results
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: El 9 Sep 2008, a las 20:37 , Dieter Maurer escribió: But interfaces might grow an additional method, e.g. adapt, which could get the new signature. The syntax would be a bit more cumbersome -- but on the other hand, it would be more explicit :-) I don't think it would be too cumbersome. While IMHO elegant, the current syntax of calling an interface to adapt isn't actually self- explanatory. I've frequently observed people tripping over this, specially when you have an IFoo interface and a Foo class -- which is quite common --, then IFoo(obj) and Foo(obj) differ only by one character. With your suggestion, it would be IFoo.adapt(obj) vs. Foo(obj), making the difference quite obvious. So overall I'm +1 +1 from me as well on IFoo.adapt() with the signature Chris suggested. zope.component.getMultiAdapter() is only easy to remember if you're a die-hard Zope coder, while IFoo.adapt() seems more useful to the larger Python community. Shane ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
