On Sat, 2009-06-20 at 13:04 -0600, Shane Hathaway wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
Why? traverseName is part of zope.app.publication's implementation.
Now it's oddly split off in a very separate package.
The publisher traversal code is very similar to the code in
zope.traversing, so I thought
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Sat Jun 20 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Sun Jun 21 12:00:00 2009 UTC.
There were 8 messages: 8 from Zope Tests.
Tests passed OK
---
Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux
From: Zope Tests
Date: Sat Jun 20 20:55:19 EDT 2009
URL:
On Jun 20, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
Why? traverseName is part of zope.app.publication's
implementation. Now it's oddly split off in a very separate
package. This makes customizing publication behavior more difficult.
I recently made proxying overridable and missed
On Jun 21, 2009, at 5:36 AM, Christian Theune wrote:
On Sat, 2009-06-20 at 13:04 -0600, Shane Hathaway wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
Why? traverseName is part of zope.app.publication's implementation.
Now it's oddly split off in a very separate package.
The publisher traversal code is very
Gaaa. As I did deeper, it's even more muddled that I feared. I'll
start a separate thread.
Jim
On Jun 21, 2009, at 8:48 AM, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Jun 21, 2009, at 5:36 AM, Christian Theune wrote:
On Sat, 2009-06-20 at 13:04 -0600, Shane Hathaway wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
Why?
I'm trying to make the Zope Toolkit (ZTK) publisher/publication
framework a little easier to deal with. I think zope.app.publication
mostly provides a generally useful publication implementation. It has
2 problems:
- Its getApplication method digs a particular object out of a ZODB
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
I'm trying to make the Zope Toolkit (ZTK) publisher/publication
framework a little easier to deal with. I think zope.app.publication
mostly provides a generally useful publication implementation. It has
2 problems:
-
Jim Fulton wrote:
I don't agree. The semantics are different. For example, you often
want to traverse to things in a template that you don't want to expose
via URL. We currently (or last time I checked) expose ++resource+
+name in URLs and this is a bug.
What use is a resource without
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Laurence Rowel...@lrowe.co.uk wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
I don't agree. The semantics are different. For example, you often
want to traverse to things in a template that you don't want to expose
via URL. We currently (or last time I checked) expose ++resource+
On Sunday 21 June 2009, Jim Fulton wrote:
Thoughts?
+1. Sounds really good!
BTW, I would love to hear about a practical example for overriding proxy()
other than turning off security altogether.
Regards,
Stephan
--
Entrepreneur and Software Geek
Google me. Zope Stephan Richter
10 matches
Mail list logo
