[Zope-dev] Is Zope.2.7.4 feature frozen ?
Hi, is the Zope 2.7.4 feature frozen ? If not, I believe that the patch : http://zope.org/Collectors/Zope/1584 It adds the directive 'extensions' to zope.conf. If overriden, then the specified directory will be used for ExternalMethods, instead of the default $INSTANCE/Extensions. IMVHO it would be simple to add and nice to have it there. For further information check the thread Give 'Extensions' a configurable directory in zope.conf, in zope users mailling list. Nevertheless, that patch was cooked for 2.8. I volunteer to clean it, port it back and test it under 2.7.4b, and re-submit to ZC if approved. best regards, Rod Senra ___ 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] Is Zope.2.7.4 feature frozen ?
--On Donnerstag, 16. September 2004 11:16 Uhr -0300 Rodrigo Dias Arruda Senra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, is the Zope 2.7.4 feature frozen ? Yes. Nevertheless, that patch was cooked for 2.8. I volunteer to clean it, port it back and test it under 2.7.4b, and re-submit to ZC if approved. Consider to clean it up for 2.7.5. New features for 2.7.4 final are currently not accepted. Andreas ___ 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] Re: [Zope-Coders] Roundtrip-safe DAV
Emiliano Heyns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Though this (zope-dev) is the right place to discuss them (I suggest we stop crossposting to zope-coders to avoid duplication). I haven't looked at the patches, but I like the idea of limiting the visibility of DAV items to those that make sense. Sorry for posting the patch to the list. I'll add it to a Zope Collector -- the CMF collector seems most appropriate, yeah? Yes the CMF collector is fine. Thanks. Florent -- Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France) CTO, Director of RD +33 1 40 33 71 59 http://nuxeo.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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] Re: [Zope-Coders] Roundtrip-safe DAV
Emiliano Heyns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:38:26 +0100, Florent Guillaume [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes the CMF collector is fine. Must issues be approved before showing up? I posted the issue but can't find it back. No it should be visible, and in the Pending state. And it's not there and I didn't get any notification email of a new entry. Please repost it (http://collector.zope.org/CMF). Florent -- Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France) CTO, Director of RD +33 1 40 33 71 59 http://nuxeo.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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] Re: [Zope-Coders] Roundtrip-safe DAV
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 15:14:36 +0100, Florent Guillaume [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No it should be visible, and in the Pending state. And it's not there and I didn't get any notification email of a new entry. Please repost it (http://collector.zope.org/CMF). I appearantly need an account on the zope site to actually store the issue (after submitting it says 'you need an account...'. When I try to create an account it just goes back to the registration page with no indication on what went wrong or right, no account created, ___ 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] Zope Service on Windows
Howdi. I just checked in how I finally got Zope 2.7.x to run as a service on Windows again. Setting the PYTHONPATH environment actually even makes more sense here as the CreateProcess API call won't take the sys.path into the new python, but the environment variables. This now also plays with the import of sitecustomize.py correctly. I still wonder why this seems to behave differently in 2.7 as in 2.8. The 2.8 currently works as a service out of the box. I don't see the actual difference. Anybody tell me. I'm scared. Also: I'd like to know if this solution for 2.7 is acceptible or not. It works for me but I'm everything but a windows guru. Cheers, Christian PS: See http://cvs.zope.org/Zope/skel/bin/Attic/zopeservice.py.in.diff?r1=1.1.2.8r2=1.1.2.9only_with_tag=Zope-2_7-branch for the change. -- gocept gmbh co. kg - schalaunische str. 6 - 06366 koethen - germany www.gocept.com - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - phone +49 3496 30 99 112 - fax +49 3496 30 99 118 - zope and plone consulting and development signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil ___ 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] Why third_party/docutils?
Just for a note: This just made me spend more than two very annoying hours debugging and fixing the zopeservice.py. Those changes are not meant to be done on a stable branch ... Am Montag, den 29.11.2004, 12:43 +0100 schrieb Stefan H. Holek: [docutils was moved from lib/python/docutils to lib/python/third_party/docutils/docutils and an ugly sys.path hack employed] Why oh why do we always have to make it harder to start up Zope (instead of making it simpler, for once)? *Going for beer to save my sanity* Theuni -- gocept gmbh co. kg - schalaunische str. 6 - 06366 koethen - germany www.gocept.com - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - phone +49 3496 30 99 112 - fax +49 3496 30 99 118 - zope and plone consulting and development signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil ___ 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] Zope Service on Windows
[Christian Theune] I just checked in how I finally got Zope 2.7.x to run as a service on Windows again. Setting the PYTHONPATH environment actually even makes more sense here as the CreateProcess API call won't take the sys.path into the new python, but the environment variables. It doesn't sound like a good solution. PYTHONPATH is Python's envar, not Zope's, and a user can legitimately set PYTHONPATH to whatever they like (for example, to get other extensions they've installed found by whichever Python is running). Then their stuff won't work if we clobber their PYTHONPATH. This now also plays with the import of sitecustomize.py correctly. I still wonder why this seems to behave differently in 2.7 as in 2.8. The 2.8 currently works as a service out of the box. I don't see the actual difference. Anybody tell me. I'm scared. I don't know -- I've lost track of how Zope 2 gets built on Windows. All along on Windows, Products/WinBuilders/etc/ has tried to install its own sitecustomize.py on Windows, to force the software home into sys.path whenever Zope's Python is used. I don't have any idea how that plays with the other sitecustomize.py newly added to Zope 2 proper. Best guess is that they conflict horribly wink, but that nobody has noticed that yet. Also: I'd like to know if this solution for 2.7 is acceptible or not. It works for me but I'm everything but a windows guru. As above, I doubt it's the right solution. But if nobody on Windows complains, maybe you're stuck with it. It would be good to know if you're aware of WinBuilders and Zope fighting over sitecustomize.py now. Who wins? If Zope's sitecustomize.py is overwriting the sitecustomize.py WinBuilders tries to install, that would explain why Windows services stopped working. ___ 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] Why third_party/docutils?
--On Donnerstag, 16. Dezember 2004 19:28 Uhr +0100 Christian Theune [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just for a note: This just made me spend more than two very annoying hours debugging and fixing the zopeservice.py. Those changes are not meant to be done on a stable branch ... I disagree because maintaining Docutils in the state as they were in former version was a real pain. Cleaning up the mess was therefore a valid option and since this change happened during two final releases things (zopeservice) were only broken in beta 1 and 2 (that's why we have betas *wink*). Also no one came up so far with a better solution so I regard the reorganization as a suitable solution. But I am of course further improvements are very welcome :-) Any volunteers? .-) Andreas ___ 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] Why third_party/docutils?
*sound of me protesting noisily* Let me remind you of the Pope's decree: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2004-November/024073.html Stefan On 16. Dez 2004, at 20:14, Andreas Jung wrote: --On Donnerstag, 16. Dezember 2004 19:28 Uhr +0100 Christian Theune [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just for a note: This just made me spend more than two very annoying hours debugging and fixing the zopeservice.py. Those changes are not meant to be done on a stable branch ... I disagree because maintaining Docutils in the state as they were in former version was a real pain. Cleaning up the mess was therefore a valid option and since this change happened during two final releases things (zopeservice) were only broken in beta 1 and 2 (that's why we have betas *wink*). Also no one came up so far with a better solution so I regard the reorganization as a suitable solution. But I am of course further improvements are very welcome :-) Any volunteers? .-) Andreas -- The time has come to start talking about whether the emperor is as well dressed as we are supposed to think he is. /Pete McBreen/ ___ 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] Re: SOAP Support for ZOPE
Brian Lloyd wrote: - It is a pain to do anything with SOAP because the publisher has a hard-coded idea that anything xml must be xml-rpc This would be minimally disruptive to the Zope core, while enabling people interested in SOAP to evolve different solutions without everybody having to buy into a particular approach or implementation right now. +1 I think these ideas are great, but wasn't it also you who said, Unfortunately, though, this misfeature has been around for a long time and would break a lot of people if the default were changed. I think getting this changed might be met with some amount of resistance. If we're voting ;-) I vote for biting the bullet and making the change today. John Ziniti ___ 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] Why third_party/docutils?
--On Donnerstag, 16. Dezember 2004 20:30 Uhr +0100 Stefan H. Holek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *sound of me protesting noisily* Let me remind you of the Pope's decree: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2004-November/024073.html I have not seen a proposal so far how to solve this issue that works with a complete Docutils package and without sitecustomize.py and I don't know about a better solution. Having Docutils in sane state from the maintenance prospective is much more important for me than leaving it as it was. Andreas ___ 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] Is Zope.2.7.4 feature frozen ?
Rodrigo Dias Arruda Senra wrote: Hi, is the Zope 2.7.4 feature frozen ? Huh? Zope 2.7 is feature frozen. New features need to go into 2.8. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ 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] Why third_party/docutils?
Andreas Jung wrote: --On Donnerstag, 16. Dezember 2004 20:30 Uhr +0100 Stefan H. Holek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *sound of me protesting noisily* Let me remind you of the Pope's decree: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2004-November/024073.html I have not seen a proposal so far how to solve this issue that works with a complete Docutils package and without sitecustomize.py and I don't know about a better solution. Having Docutils in sane state from the maintenance prospective is much more important for me than leaving it as it was. As I said in one of my responses to this thread, I see no problem that this extra directory solves. Could you please explain what problem you think an extra directory will solve? Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ 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] Why third_party/docutils?
Andreas Jung wrote: --On Donnerstag, 16. Dezember 2004 15:34 Uhr -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andreas Jung wrote: --On Donnerstag, 16. Dezember 2004 20:30 Uhr +0100 Stefan H. Holek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *sound of me protesting noisily* Let me remind you of the Pope's decree: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2004-November/024073.html I have not seen a proposal so far how to solve this issue that works with a complete Docutils package and without sitecustomize.py and I don't know about a better solution. Having Docutils in sane state from the maintenance prospective is much more important for me than leaving it as it was. As I said in one of my responses to this thread, I see no problem that this extra directory solves. Could you please explain what problem you think an extra directory will solve? Stefan complained about the sitecustomize.py file and the additional paths injected inside the file. Moving docutils as a whole to lib/python would not solve the problem with similar adjustments to sys.path. AFAICT, the problem is that you made a change that requires lots of scripts to be modified and become slightly more complicated. This is not a huge deal if there's a good reason for it, but I can't figure out what that reason could be. See below. So sitecustomize.py is the issue and not the location. Why is docutils in third_party? Stefan asked this before. You answered: It has been moved there because older Zope versions shipped with a stripped down and hacked docutils version which fit into the path magic. But this version was hard to maintain and it was a pain in the a** to update the package from time to time. That's why it moved as a whole into a different location. This answer doesn't make any sense to me. What does changing the docutils version have to do with it's location. Zope 3 has docutils in lib/python, why can't Zope 2? Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ 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] Re: SOAP Support for ZOPE
Hi Brian: I discussed with Michel Pelletier and he will help to produce a patch that exactly implements your proposal that we'll send to you for your review. Then we'll just provide an outside Product that calls the registration function. Thanks a lot for your suggestions... Aruna Kathiriya -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Lloyd Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 11:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Zope-dev] Re: SOAP Support for ZOPE Hi all - having had to implement a monkey patch product before to enable SOAP, I'd like to make a few observations and a suggestion: - It is a pain to do anything with SOAP because the publisher has a hard-coded idea that anything xml must be xml-rpc - There is currently no easy way around this w/o monkey patching, which then leaves you vulnerable to future changes to the publisher - Opinions on the state of SOAP support in the Python world are far from unanimous - I think it would be premature to put a particular implementation into Zope proper - That said, Zope should make it possible for Cignex and others to provide SOAP support as add-on products without unreasonable contortions So the suggestion: I think we'd be in a better place if we: - Fix the publisher to at least recognize a SOAP request vs. an xml-rpc request - Provide some kind of 'registration hook' so that a Product can register with the publisher to handle SOAP requests - Have the publisher hand off where appropriate to a registered SOAP handler if installed, else return an HTTP NotImplemented or similar if there is no SOAP handler - Apply the KISS rule: only one product can register to the be the SOAP handler, and resist turning this into any kind of grand-unified-pluggable-publisher architecture ;) This would be minimally disruptive to the Zope core, while enabling people interested in SOAP to evolve different solutions without everybody having to buy into a particular approach or implementation right now. Brian Lloyd[EMAIL PROTECTED] V.P. Engineering 540.361.1716 Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tres Seaver Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 1:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Zope-dev] Re: SOAP Support for ZOPE Florent Guillaume wrote: Richard wrote: On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 06:54 am, Aruna Kathiria wrote: I did some work regarding SOAP support on ZOPE and published this document on zope.org. Is there really no interest in getting SOAP support into the Zope core? I've got a guy working on some Microsoft Word stuff at the moment, and he was dumbfounded when he discovered that Zope doesn't support SOAP. In his words, everyone supports SOAP. Sigh :) There is probably interest, but it needs motivated people like Aruna and you to push it. Are there any objections to getting Aruna's patches into the 2.8 codebase? I'd be willing to do the work - but note I know practically nothing about SOAP - I just want to be able to use it. One problem is that Aruna's approach introduces dependencies to external modules: fpconst, and a patched SOAPy. If these can be resolved, why not. Because of those dependencies, I think support in the core is not feasible. However, I believe that it should be possible to create a product which solves those issues. This product would either need to monkey-patch the publisher (as outlined by John Zinit earlier in the thread) or else register a new kind of server, which could be configured (like the WebDAV source server) to listen on its own port. For an example of such a Product, see ZServerSSL, http://sandbox.rulemaker.net/ngps/zope/zssl/ Tres. -- === Tres Seaver[EMAIL PROTECTED] Zope Corporation Zope Dealers http://www.zope.com ___ 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 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 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] Why third_party/docutils?
--On Donnerstag, 16. Dezember 2004 16:01 Uhr -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andreas Jung wrote: --On Donnerstag, 16. Dezember 2004 15:34 Uhr -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andreas Jung wrote: --On Donnerstag, 16. Dezember 2004 20:30 Uhr +0100 Stefan H. Holek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *sound of me protesting noisily* Let me remind you of the Pope's decree: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2004-November/024073.html I have not seen a proposal so far how to solve this issue that works with a complete Docutils package and without sitecustomize.py and I don't know about a better solution. Having Docutils in sane state from the maintenance prospective is much more important for me than leaving it as it was. As I said in one of my responses to this thread, I see no problem that this extra directory solves. Could you please explain what problem you think an extra directory will solve? Stefan complained about the sitecustomize.py file and the additional paths injected inside the file. Moving docutils as a whole to lib/python would not solve the problem with similar adjustments to sys.path. AFAICT, the problem is that you made a change that requires lots of scripts to be modified and become slightly more complicated. This is not a huge deal if there's a good reason for it, but I can't figure out what that reason could be. See below. You're still not getting the point. Z2 shipped and Z3 ships with a *stripped* down version of Docutils where only the docutils subfolder is used. Now the *whole* package is included which makes it necessary to adjust the paths. Moving this as a whole to lib/python does *not* solve the need to adjust the path using sitecustomize.py or by adding paths to runzopefriends. Docutils should be kept *somewhere* as a *whole* which makes updating much easier. Moving the package to lib/python does *not* solve Stefans problem which is maybe only a problem on Stefan's side (I don't know). I would appreciate it if people in the community could come up with reasonable proposals and ideas how to solve problems instead of fighting against solutions being made. Especially the Z2 community is currently in a state where there is much talking and crying of people about Z2 issues that sux or must be resolved but there is really only a small, small of people really doing something substantial work. So looking back at this issue: the solution is working except for Stefan and if there is a problem anyone should suggest a reasonable problem or just fix the original problem (maintainability of Docutils) in a better way than I did. Otherwise we should keep it as it is or revert to an older version that has not the problems. But in this case I won't care about Docutils in future versions. Andreas ___ 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] Why third_party/docutils?
Andreas Jung wrote at 2004-12-16 20:47 +0100: *sound of me protesting noisily* Let me remind you of the Pope's decree: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2004-November/024073.html I have not seen a proposal so far how to solve this issue that works with a complete Docutils package and without sitecustomize.py and I don't know about a better solution. What problems are solved by (mere) moving DocUtils into a third_party package that stay when it is one level up? Providing Zope's own sitecustomize.py interferes with site customizations usually maintained in the site's sitecustomize.py. At least, this needs prominent warning notes: Zope now shadows any sitecustomize.py that may be in effect in your Python installation. Move any relevant definitions to Zope's sitecustomize.py. A *.pth file might be an alternative to a sitecustomize.py (although *.pth has issues, too). -- Dieter ___ 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] Is Zope.2.7.4 feature frozen ?
On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 11:16:22AM -0300, Rodrigo Dias Arruda Senra wrote: Hi, is the Zope 2.7.4 feature frozen ? If not, I believe that the patch : http://zope.org/Collectors/Zope/1584 It adds the directive 'extensions' to zope.conf. If overriden, then the specified directory will be used for ExternalMethods, instead of the default $INSTANCE/Extensions. Nice idea. How hard would it be to make it support multiple Extensions directories, just like we can have multiple Products directories? -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com ___ 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 )
