Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Mon Feb 4 12:00:00 2008 UTC to Tue Feb 5 12:00:00 2008 UTC.
There were 6 messages: 6 from Zope Unit Tests.
Tests passed OK
---
Subject: OK : Zope-2.7 Python-2.3.6 : Linux
From: Zope Unit Tests
Date: Mon Feb 4 21:01:33 EST 2008
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Tuesday 15 January 2008, Chris Withers wrote:
For what I'm after, I need to have a more dynamic buildup of
registrations based on which objects have been traversed through.
Right. I think the component architecture is not really made for this.
Sure it is, I'm
Christian Theune wrote at 2008-2-4 13:23 +0100:
...
+# agroszer: 2008.feb.1.: currently the above seems not to be true
+# request will KEEP the response on close()
+# even more if a retry occurs in the publisher,
+# the response will be LOST, so we must accept
Hey,
Kevin Teague wrote:
And it would also be really nice
if the Grok terminology and release methods lined up with the Zope 3
terminology and release methods :)
Grok got there first, then KGS came along and did a lot of stuff. The
reason Grok's story is not the same as the one in KGS is
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 07:41:13PM +0100, Dieter Maurer wrote:
SVN tracks who edited what and when, the statement of your name and the
change date isn't necessary.
But when one looks at the code, it is not easy to find out which
SVN revision produced this code -- unless you look through
Hi,
Dieter Maurer schrieb:
Christian Theune wrote at 2008-2-4 13:23 +0100:
...
+# agroszer: 2008.feb.1.: currently the above seems not to be true
+# request will KEEP the response on close()
+# even more if a retry occurs in the publisher,
+# the response will
