Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Sat Mar 19 12:00:00 2011 UTC to Sun Mar 20 12:00:00 2011 UTC.
There were 99 messages: 8 from Zope Tests, 4 from buildbot at pov.lt, 29 from
buildbot at winbot.zope.org, 8 from ccomb at free.fr, 5 from ct at gocept.com,
45 from jdriessen at thehea
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Stephan Richter
wrote:
...
> I would be much
> more interested in seeing a working WebOb to zope.publisher bridge. I know
> Jim(?)
Yes.
> has done some initial work on that. I think it would make an
> interesting PSF project, since it encourages more reusability
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> Getting ZCA/ZTK to run on PyPy is probably easier, and actually more
> useful. Maybe someone would want to mentor that?
This is another porting project. If I was a student, I wouldn't find it very
interesting to port some code I hadn't wr
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> I'm still in Atlanta, and Arc Riley asked for a Zope person to
> possibly mentor some zope.* project for Python Software Foundation
> this year.
Here's another idea.
Problem
===
ZTK projects use ZCML too much. Ideally, ZCML should o
On 20 March 2011 13:46, Jim Fulton wrote:
> I think we ought to come up with a much cleaner way of defining
> default configuration. (Pyramid does this by passing default values in
> adapter calls, but I think we can do a lot better than that.) I'd
> like to see us come up with a "pythonic" way
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> On 20 March 2011 13:46, Jim Fulton wrote:
>
>> I think we ought to come up with a much cleaner way of defining
>> default configuration. (Pyramid does this by passing default values in
>> adapter calls, but I think we can do a lot better tha
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
> - The mechanism shouldn't require something to "grok"/analyze the
> code. The mechanism should be explicit. This is implied by
> "pythonic". I remember Grok being more implicit than skimming the
> links above suggest. Perhaps Grok has has b
On 3/20/11 16:00 , Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
>> - The mechanism shouldn't require something to "grok"/analyze the
>> code. The mechanism should be explicit. This is implied by
>> "pythonic". I remember Grok being more implicit than skimming
On 3/20/11 16:03 , Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> On 3/20/11 16:00 , Hanno Schlichting wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
>>> - The mechanism shouldn't require something to "grok"/analyze the
>>>code. The mechanism should be explicit. This is implied by
>>>"pythonic"
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
>> - The mechanism shouldn't require something to "grok"/analyze the
>> code. The mechanism should be explicit. This is implied by
>> "pythonic". I remember Grok being more implicit
Hi,
On 20 March 2011 15:00, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
>> - The mechanism shouldn't require something to "grok"/analyze the
>> code. The mechanism should be explicit. This is implied by
>> "pythonic". I remember Grok being more implicit than
Hi,
On 20 March 2011 15:29, Jim Fulton wrote:
>> I think you cannot avoid this, if you want to support an explicit
>> configuration phase. Otherwise the first import of a module could
>> occur at any point at runtime and have a configuration side-effect
>> like registering a new view. Personally
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> I appreciate that in Python 3 the in-class advice (which was pioneered
> by zope.component/zope.interface, don't forget) may not work properly,
> so we may not have any choice eventually.
There's really no choice. The syntax we use today sim
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
> I disagree. First, the notion that you'd import at run time is pretty odd,
> unless you count start-up in "runtime".
Right, sorry. I'm used to writing add-ons for an application. In this
environment my code isn't in charge of the startup proce
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/20/2011 09:46 AM, Jim Fulton wrote:
> Problem
> ===
>
> ZTK projects use ZCML too much. Ideally, ZCML should only
> have to be used when we want to override something.
>
> Solution sketch
> ===
>
> I think we ought to come up
> - The mechanism shouldn't require something to "grok"/analyze the
> code. The mechanism should be explicit. This is implied by
> "pythonic". I remember Grok being more implicit than skimming the
> links above suggest. Perhaps Grok has has become more explicit than
> I remember.
+10^som
On 2011-3-20 17:47, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> Sure. I didn't mean to exclude this. Pyramid allows you to do a very
> explicit configuration without any scanning. If you write an
> application and have full control over all its parts, this works.
>
> Things get complicated, once you reuse libraries
17 matches
Mail list logo
