[Zope-dev] Zope Tests: 5 OK
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Sun Sep 23 12:00:00 2007 UTC to Mon Sep 24 12:00:00 2007 UTC. There were 5 messages: 5 from Zope Unit Tests. Tests passed OK --- Subject: OK : Zope-2.7 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Sun Sep 23 20:51:35 EDT 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-September/008386.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.8 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Sun Sep 23 20:53:05 EDT 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-September/008387.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.9 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Sun Sep 23 20:54:35 EDT 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-September/008388.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Sun Sep 23 20:56:05 EDT 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-September/008389.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Sun Sep 23 20:57:36 EDT 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-September/008390.html ___ 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] Re: How to publish Zope2 products on PyPI
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2007-9-23 19:24 +0200: On 23 Sep 2007, at 19:05 , Dieter Maurer wrote: Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2007-9-22 19:27 +0200: ... Dieter Maurer wrote: ... * PyPI doesn't necessarily have to contain eggs. It's primarily a discovery mechanism for humans. The fact that setuptools can download packages from it is not as important as the fact that developers can find packages there. The reason why I had to promiss to make my products available via PyPI was that they can be downloaded from there. Right. So then I don't understand why need all that extra machinery in Zope and an extra namespace. Others already have pointed out, that the namespace already exists in PyPI: Products. It was not obvious ;-) I am fine with this. all that extra machinery means a declaration additional-product[s] -- something I have learned meanwhile exists already in Five as registerProduct. I explain below why I think Five is not the proper place. Thus, the functionality is there -- just maybe in the wrong place. If Five's registerPackage functionality is what you had been proposing all along, then I have been misunderstanding you terribly. Either way, you don't elaborate on why you think that this is the wrong place for it. I personally consider registerPackage a solutino for integrating new software (Zope 3-style software in Python packages) into a legacy discovery mechanism (the automatic Products.* loading). I have already sketched my reason why I deem Five the wrong place to a registerProduct. I repeat it again: * Five is the vehicle to make Zope 3 concepts available in Zope 2. A product is a Zope 2 concept. Zope 3 does not have it. Thus why, what has Five to do with Zope 2 products? * zope.conf has already a declaration that controls which products are used by an instance products. When we need another one (I do feel this need), I would have put it there, in zope.conf, where already the other declaration lives -- and not in Five. Having one declaration in zope.conf and one in Five looks like bad design for me... -- 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 )
[Zope-dev] Re: Mixing recipes (zc.recipe.cmmi reuse)
On Sep 18, 2007, at 6:25 PM, Sidnei da Silva wrote: Hi there, Not sure this is the right list, but let's give it a try. I would like to use the 'patches' functionality from zc.recipe.cmmi together with other recipes. I believe this is useful functionality and is interesting to all sorts of recipes, not only to cmmi-based ones. So the question is, does the zc.buildout architecture support reusing options from a recipe on other recipes? It is just Python. Buildout doesn't provide any support fro this because it isn't really needed. Or would it require the recipe writer to explicitly 'subclass' (?) cmmi to get patch functionality? I prefer composition. A number of recipes reuse the egg recipe through composition. Generally, an egg will need to explicitly provide a Python API for other eggs. See, for example, http://pypi.python.org/pypi/ zc.recipe.egg/1.0.0b6#egg-recipe-api-for-other-recipes Or even, would a 'post-fetch'/'pre-build' generalization be desired, 'patch' being one such application? I have no idea what that is. :) Jim -- Jim Fulton Zope Corporation ___ 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 )
[Zope-dev] Re: Mixing recipes (zc.recipe.cmmi reuse)
On 9/24/07, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or would it require the recipe
writer to explicitly 'subclass' (?) cmmi to get patch functionality?
I prefer composition. A number of recipes reuse the egg recipe
through composition.
Generally, an egg will need to explicitly provide a Python API for
other eggs. See, for example, http://pypi.python.org/pypi/
zc.recipe.egg/1.0.0b6#egg-recipe-api-for-other-recipes
Gotcha, that makes sense.
Or even, would a 'post-fetch'/'pre-build' generalization be desired,
'patch' being one such application?
I have no idea what that is. :)
My intent is:
Given any recipe, no matter where data is coming from (be it an egg
in PyPI, a Subversion checkout or a tarball), I would like to be able
to perform an operation in the 'local copy' of the data, without
depending on the person that wrote the recipe to have allowed me to do
so
An example being, after a recipe that does a Subversion checkout runs,
my custom operation kicks in and applies a patch to the local copy
before the buildout processing continues.
I believe that this might be doable today by writing custom
configuration, but maybe it's such a common case that could be
simplified.
Maybe something along the lines of (note: this is all pseudo-config):
[Step1]
recipe = some.recipe.checkout
url = svn://url-to-repo/package
[Step2]
recipe = zc.recipe.cmmi
source = {Step1:location}
patch = /path/to/my/patch
[zope2]
products = {Step2:location}
I believe that something like this might already work today, if not it
might be easy to make it work that way. But what I'm after is to avoid
Step2 above by listing the patch to be applied in Step1 even if
'some.recipe.checkout' does not support the 'patch' option directly.
All in all, if you tell me that the hypotetical Step2 above really
can't be avoided and that the best option is to make
'some.recipe.checkout' and any other recipes out support the 'patch'
option directly, I would be fine with that too.
Does it make more sense now?
--
Sidnei da Silva
Enfold Systemshttp://enfoldsystems.com
Fax +1 832 201 8856 Office +1 713 942 2377 Ext 214
___
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 )
[Zope-dev] Re: Mixing recipes (zc.recipe.cmmi reuse)
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
My intent is:
Given any recipe, no matter where data is coming from (be it an egg
in PyPI, a Subversion checkout or a tarball), I would like to be able
to perform an operation in the 'local copy' of the data, without
depending on the person that wrote the recipe to have allowed me to do
so
An example being, after a recipe that does a Subversion checkout runs,
my custom operation kicks in and applies a patch to the local copy
before the buildout processing continues.
I believe that this might be doable today by writing custom
configuration, but maybe it's such a common case that could be
simplified.
Maybe something along the lines of (note: this is all pseudo-config):
[Step1]
recipe = some.recipe.checkout
url = svn://url-to-repo/package
[Step2]
recipe = zc.recipe.cmmi
source = {Step1:location}
Do ${Step1:location}
patch = /path/to/my/patch
[zope2]
products = {Step2:location}
I believe that something like this might already work today,
It does. Again, this is just Python. You have a dict-like variable
'buildout' passed to your recipe's __init__(). This has keys for each
section, which contains a dict with keys for each option. So above, you
could address buildout['Step1']['url'], say. You can also put things
into this dict-of-dicts. Once a recipe has been run, subsequent recipes
will be able to see things put into the dict.
if not it
might be easy to make it work that way. But what I'm after is to avoid
Step2 above by listing the patch to be applied in Step1 even if
'some.recipe.checkout' does not support the 'patch' option directly.
How would you avoid naming conflicts? How would you declare where that
option comes from? I really don't think the overhead of having to
specify a new recipe (as in your Step2 above) is very much, and it's a
lot more explicit.
All in all, if you tell me that the hypotetical Step2 above really
can't be avoided and that the best option is to make
'some.recipe.checkout' and any other recipes out support the 'patch'
option directly, I would be fine with that too.
I'd suggest that's the best way. Only a limited number of recipes would
really need 'path' - those could re-use your patch recipe via
composition if necessary, but you have a fallback of using the recipe on
its own.
Martin
--
Acquisition is a jealous mistress
___
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 )
