Good evening(or morning?);-),
I am just wondering if any of you have such installation, I am having
problems with OS X because of Zope behaviour of HTTPRequest and cgi.py
it uses for FieldStorage which in turn uses TemporaryFile. I need
responses only from people that have OS X 10.3.8, zope 2.7+
--On Freitag, 1. April 2005 18:44 Uhr -0500 Tim Peters
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[Tim Peters]
...
All the substantive changes I needed to make were completed last
night, and the overnight test runs were successful. I still need to
write up ZODB NEWS, fiddle the version numbers, make a 3.4a1 re
Tres Seaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is everyone ok with returning
> > - the object if it can be accessed
> > - raise Unauthorized if it can't be accessed
> > - raise NotFound if it's not there
> > and never return None ?
> >
> > I'll change that before tomorrow, for 2.8a2.
> >
> > (I'l
Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Florent Guillaume wrote:
> > I really could use a post publishing hook.
> > Standard use case: delay indexing at the end of the request to only do
> > it once per object even if the object has been modified 4 times.
>
> Using a post publishing hook f
[Tim Peters]
> ...
> All the substantive changes I needed to make were completed last
> night, and the overnight test runs were successful. I still need to
> write up ZODB NEWS, fiddle the version numbers, make a 3.4a1 release
> tag, and edit the svn:externals in Zope trunk to point at that tag.
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
yuppie wrote:
> Tres Seaver wrote:
>
>>> I'd really like to see http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope/1460 resolved
>>> before the release:
>>>
>>> 1.) AFAICS this bug is easy to fix.
>>>
>>> 2.) It makes at least CMFDefault sites unusable, deterring C
Christian Heimes wrote:
* DeferWrapper didn't cache the result of the expression like ordinary
vars do.
This was intended, though you couldn't know that since I never
documented this. Consider the following terrible example:
This should evaluate to:
x is 0
x is 1
x is 2
Why?? I d
Florent Guillaume wrote at 2005-4-1 13:21 +0200:
>Florent Guillaume <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Unauthorized in getObject is out of the question, that would be new
>> >> behaviour.
>> >
>> > Well, in 2.8, new behaviour is expected, right?
>> > I really passionately believe that we should no
Max M wrote at 2005-3-31 14:48 +0200:
> ...
>Most of my queries, where I need to wake up objects, has the form::
>
> brains = catalog(portal_type='Document')
> objects = []
> for brain in brains:
> try:
> obj = brain.getObject()
> if not obj is None:
>
Florent Guillaume wrote at 2005-4-1 17:48 +0200:
> ...
>Open issues are:
>1. what if there's an exception in the hook? I'd say log it but that's all.
I prefer: fail in the usual way.
>2. what if there's a Conflicterror? That's tougher to deal with... The
>transaction has to be retried, without t
Florent Guillaume wrote:
I really could use a post publishing hook.
Standard use case: delay indexing at the end of the request to only do
it once per object even if the object has been modified 4 times.
Using a post publishing hook for this use case isn't a good idea - IMO.
The Publisher has not
Chris McDonough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When do you think it should be called?
I should have answered that clearly:
I'd put it in ZPublisher.publish, like this:
result=mapply(object, request.args, request,
call_object,1,
missing_name,
I didn't know about that hook, but from reading the code it seems it
takes place before publishing, not after.
There's the recent post_traverse hook too, but that's not what I want.
Florent
Chris McDonough wrote:
When do you think it should be called? I just had to override
zpublisher_validated_
When do you think it should be called? I just had to override
zpublisher_validated_hook to do some stuff that would have been a bit
easier if a different hook existed, but that might be a different use
case...
On Fri, 2005-04-01 at 10:48, Florent Guillaume wrote:
> I really could use a post publ
I really could use a post publishing hook.
Standard use case: delay indexing at the end of the request to only do
it once per object even if the object has been modified 4 times.
Today there's the REQUEST._hold() hack with an instance having a
__del__, but this gets executed outside the main tra
Hi Tres!
Tres Seaver wrote:
I'd really like to see http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope/1460 resolved
before the release:
1.) AFAICS this bug is easy to fix.
2.) It makes at least CMFDefault sites unusable, deterring CMF users
from testing Zope 2.8.
I could merge the fix from the 2.7 branch myself,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Florent Guillaume wrote:
> Florent Guillaume <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Unauthorized in getObject is out of the question, that would be new
behaviour.
>>>
>>>Well, in 2.8, new behaviour is expected, right?
>>>I really passionately believe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
yuppie wrote:
> Andreas Jung wrote:
>
>> I am planning to make the release tomorrow (Saturday afternoon (German
>> time :-)). So please make
>> your final fixes very soon or cry out loud STOP if there are any show
>> stoppers.
>
> I'd really like to
[Andreas Jung]
> I am planning to make the release tomorrow (Saturday afternoon
> (German time :-)). So please make your final fixes very soon or cry out loud
> STOP if there are any show stoppers.
Barring an unexpected heart attack, an alpha-quality ZODB will be in
place for you by then.
Jim wil
Alan Milligan wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Withers wrote:
| ZEO, multiple clients and processor affinity settings already offer
| this, and with no extra development needed...
|
What userland tools are you using to implement processor affinity??
Alan
schedutils. See re
Florent Guillaume <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Unauthorized in getObject is out of the question, that would be new
> >> behaviour.
> >
> > Well, in 2.8, new behaviour is expected, right?
> > I really passionately believe that we should not be returnining None in
> > Zope 2.8, and since 2.8 h
--On Freitag, 1. April 2005 11:43 Uhr +0200 yuppie
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I could merge the fix from the 2.7 branch myself, but I hate to check in
code I don't understand completely. Maybe Tres or Jim can have a look at
this? Or at least review the checkin if I do it myself?
Same here :-) If
Hi!
Andreas Jung wrote:
I am planning to make the release tomorrow (Saturday afternoon (German
time :-)). So please make
your final fixes very soon or cry out loud STOP if there are any show
stoppers.
I'd really like to see http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope/1460 resolved
before the release:
1
Florent Guillaume wrote:
Well of course no, but I never had to check a getObject() against
Unauthorized. Maybe it's because I only use it in a CMF setting where
unaccessible objects are filtered anyway.
Maybe, but CMF isn't the only use of Zope ;-)
OTOH you're a bit excessive in your "Whole arra
24 matches
Mail list logo
