[Zope-dev] re: DateTime stftime and TAI based timezone is broken or is it?

2003-12-01 Thread Brad Clements
I think adding right/EST5EDT  tzfile info to DateTimeZone.py might solve my problem.

Can someone email me the .py script used to create the DateTimeZone.py file?



-- 
Brad Clements,[EMAIL PROTECTED]   (315)268-1000
http://www.murkworks.com  (315)268-9812 Fax
http://www.wecanstopspam.org/   AOL-IM: BKClements


___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 )


[Zope-dev] DateTime stftime and TAI based timezone is broken or is it?

2003-12-01 Thread Brad Clements
Yesterday I switched my Linux machines to use clockspeed 0.62 and therefore had to 
switch to the right/EST5EDT timezone.

Today my client calls rather upset that lots of data has disappeared from his 
database, 
etc..

So while I have found and fixed a bunch of timezone conversion problems in my code, 
I'm stumped by DateTime.strftime().

I'm working with Zope 2.6.0 but the code is the same in 2.7.0b2

Basically, I get this situation:

>>> dx
'2003-12-01 00:00:00'
>>> y = DateTime.DateTime(dx)
>>> y
DateTime('2003/12/01')
>>> y.strftime("%a %b. %d")
'Sun Nov. 30'
>>> y.strftime("%a %b %d %H:%M:%S")
'Sun Nov 30 23:59:38'
>>> y.Time()
'00:00:00'

So, the DateTime object knows the correct year, month and day, it's mishandling of  
'diff' in strftime is a problem. I can't quite figure out what the regex does in the 
code 
below, but diff is 22 seconds off from the "regular timezone offset". That's will be 
lost in 
the divide by 36. 

The timezone offset that _tzoffset calculates is wrong:

>>> DateTime._tzoffset(y._tz, y._t)
-18000

Because 

>>> y._tz
'US/Eastern'

(but it should be 'right/EST5EDT') 


What's the best way for me to fix this? I'll submit a patch if I can get a clue. 

Btw, the timezone right/EST5EDT isn't in DateTime's timezone listing. Shouldn't Zope 
get this data from Python?

I'll remark that Python doesn't know about the 'correct' offset either. 

>>> import time
>>> time.tzname
('EST', 'EDT')
>>> time.timezone
18000

Well now I'm stuck, I've set /etc/localtime and /usr/share/zoneinfo/posixrules 
correctly, 
and "date" returns the correct time.

However even forcing TZ with Python 2.3 doesn't work correctly.

sh-2.05b$ TZ="right/EST5EDT" python2.3
Python 2.3.2 (#2, Nov  6 2003, 10:44:39) 
[GCC 3.2.2 20030222 (Red Hat Linux 3.2.2-5)] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> import os
>>> os.environ['TZ']
'right/EST5EDT'
>>> import time
>>> time.timezone
18000
>>> time.tzname
('EST', 'EDT')
>>> time.tzset()
>>> time.tzname
('EST', 'EDT')
>>> time.timezone
18000

How does time.localtime() know the correct timezone offset, but time.timezone is not 
correct?

>>> time.localtime(); os.system('date')
(2003, 12, 1, 12, 55, 25, 0, 335, 0)
Mon Dec  1 12:55:25 EST 2003


-

DateTime.py

def strftime(self, format):
# Format the date/time using the *current timezone representation*.
diff = _tzoffset(self._tz, self._t)
format = re.sub('(^\|[^%])%z',
   '\\1%+05d' % (diff / 36),
   format)
return strftime(format, safegmtime(self.timeTime() + diff))

-- 
Brad Clements,[EMAIL PROTECTED]   (315)268-1000
http://www.murkworks.com  (315)268-9812 Fax
http://www.wecanstopspam.org/   AOL-IM: BKClements


___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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] New-style ExtensionClass

2003-12-01 Thread Tino Wildenhain
Dieter Maurer schrieb:
Jim Fulton wrote at 2003-10-20 11:55 -0400:
 > ...
 > Speaking of Zope 2.8, Jeremy Hylton has suggested that, perhaps, Zope 2.8
 > should be a release that provides *only*:
 > 
 > - New-style ExtensionClass, and
 > 
 > - ZODB 3.3, featuring multi-version concurrency control,
 > 
 > plus any features that have been added to the head since the Zope 2.7
 > branch was created.
 > 
 > This idea is pretty appealing to me.  I wonder what others think of it.

+1

+10

Tino

___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 )


[Zope-dev] Re: Heads up: about to merge new-style ExtensionClass and ZODB 3.3 into Zope 2 head

2003-12-01 Thread Yuppie
Hi Jim!

Jim Fulton wrote:
I tested CMF with Zope HEAD.
1.) "from ZODB import Persistent, PersistentMapping" doesn't work anymore
2.) assignment to class dictionaries doesn't work anymore
These two are now fixed in CMF HEAD. So whoever wants to have a look at 
the other issues: Tests and Zope are running again with CMF installed.

3.) 'rebinding by assignment' doesn't work anymore
[...]
This is consistent with standard Python behavior:
[...]
So I'm inclined to consider the new behavior correct.
Correct or not: This is a backwards compatibility issue.

I also found this one:
http://localhost:8080/Control_Panel/Database/main/manage_main
unbound method db_name() must be called with ApplicationManager instance 
as first argument (got nothing instead)

You already didn't switch to the new mro to make migration easier. If it 
is possible to give newstyle ExtensionClasses the old rebinding behavior 
I'd vote for that.

If not, people need some advice how to update their products:
- How do I find code depending on the old behavior?
- How do I fix that code? (I know I can copy 'n' paste the code I want 
to reuse from other classes, but is there a better way to reuse code 
without subclassing?)

4.) some objects publishable in Zope 2.7 aren't publishable anymore


Can you give any specifics?
Zope Core:
http://localhost:8080/temp_folder
http://localhost:8080/Control_Panel/DavLocks
CMF:
http://localhost:8080/myCMFSite/portal_skins/zpt_generic
http://localhost:8080/myCMFSite/portal_workflow/default_workflow
No big deal to add docstrings, but what's the policy change?


For better or worse, it has always been policy not to publish objects
without non-empty doc strings.
That's what I thought. But it seems like Zope 2.7 doesn't catch them all.

Cheers,
Yuppie


___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 )