Christian Zagrodnick wrote:
On 2009-12-01 16:36:50 +0100, yuppie y.2...@wcm-solutions.de said:
Christian Zagrodnick wrote:
AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'location'
Should be fixed now. Yuppie
Thanks! And it was such an easy fix! :)
Well. Actually I didn't test with a
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Tue Dec 1 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Wed Dec 2 12:00:00 2009 UTC.
There were 6 messages: 6 from Zope Tests.
Tests passed OK
---
Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux
From: Zope Tests
Date: Tue Dec 1 20:38:19 EST 2009
URL:
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 2:21 AM, Thomas Lotze t...@gocept.com wrote:
To be honest, I just don't see why this whole singleton business shouldn't
be orthogonal to the concepts of the component architecture.
Well said. If an application cares about singleton creation or
ownership of
On Dec 2, 2009, at 8:33 AM, Fred Drake wrote:
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 2:21 AM, Thomas Lotze t...@gocept.com wrote:
To be honest, I just don't see why this whole singleton business shouldn't
be orthogonal to the concepts of the component architecture.
Well said. If an application cares
Gary Poster wrote:
On Dec 2, 2009, at 8:33 AM, Fred Drake wrote:
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 2:21 AM, Thomas Lotze t...@gocept.com wrote:
To be honest, I just don't see why this whole singleton business
shouldn't be orthogonal to the concepts of the component architecture.
Well said. If an
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Gary Poster gary.pos...@gmail.com wrote:
You are arguing for the unification of utilities and adapters?
No. I'm arguing not to conflate utilities with the singleton pattern
or adaptation with ownership of the resulting adaptation.
-Fred
--
Fred L. Drake,
Martijn Faassen wrote:
* a utility never has a connection. That's because it already got
instantiated long before the lookup takes place.
Isn't it the other way around: A utility never has a connection to any
adapted object, and that's *why we can* instantiate it long before the
lookup takes
Thomas Lotze wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
* a utility never has a connection. That's because it already got
instantiated long before the lookup takes place.
Isn't it the other way around: A utility never has a connection to any
adapted object, and that's *why we can* instantiate it long
On Dec 2, 2009, at 8:58 AM, Fred Drake wrote:
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Gary Poster gary.pos...@gmail.com wrote:
You are arguing for the unification of utilities and adapters?
No. I'm arguing not to conflate utilities with the singleton pattern
or adaptation with ownership of the
Gary Poster wrote:
Without this distinction, AFAICT either you want to conflate the ideas, or
you have a concept of the differences between the two that is more
esoteric than I think is useful. I get the impression that it is on the
second point of those that we disagree.
Right, I
Unifying adapters and utilities gets us nowhere.
If we remove the distinction between an adapter and a utility we are
simply left with the concept of component. Then we have components,
nothing else. Components are objects registered base on what interface
they implement, and can be looked up
On Wednesday 02 December 2009, Lennart Regebro wrote:
When there is such a clear and distinct conceptual difference between
adapters and utilities, why would we try to murk that distinction by
pretending that non adapters are a special case of adapters, when it's
obvious that that's exactly
Chris McDonough wrote:
Thomas Lotze wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
* a utility never has a connection. That's because it already got
instantiated long before the lookup takes place.
Isn't it the other way around: A utility never has a connection to any
adapted object, and that's *why we can*
When a try/finally clause is (appropriately) used to do cleanup after an
exception during a test run, it often tears down parts of the fixture
that are needed in order to do useful post_mortem debugging of the
exception, such as closing the request or db connections. What is the
best way to do
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ross Patterson wrote:
When a try/finally clause is (appropriately) used to do cleanup after an
exception during a test run, it often tears down parts of the fixture
that are needed in order to do useful post_mortem debugging of the
exception, such
Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com writes:
Ross Patterson wrote:
When a try/finally clause is (appropriately) used to do cleanup after an
exception during a test run, it often tears down parts of the fixture
that are needed in order to do useful post_mortem debugging of the
exception, such as
On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 09:08:51AM -0800, Ross Patterson wrote:
When a try/finally clause is (appropriately) used to do cleanup after an
exception during a test run, it often tears down parts of the fixture
that are needed in order to do useful post_mortem debugging of the
exception, such as
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Ross Patterson m...@rpatterson.net wrote:
I'm sorry, I was unclear, the try/finally clauses are not necessarily in
*test tearDown* methods (though I used that language), they are often a
part of the application being tested, such as closing the request,
closing
Benji York be...@zope.com writes:
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Ross Patterson m...@rpatterson.net wrote:
I'm sorry, I was unclear, the try/finally clauses are not necessarily in
*test tearDown* methods (though I used that language), they are often a
part of the application being tested,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ross Patterson wrote:
Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com writes:
Are you using try:...finally:... inside your testcase methods? If so,
why not just move the cleanup invocation into your 'tearDown' for the
testcase class: at that point, the '-D'
On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 01:36:37PM -0500, Benji York wrote:
Here's another idea: a testrunner option that takes a file name and line
number and inserts a breakpoint at that position. That way you can get
the same effect as editing the code without actually having to do so.
Is that possible?
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Marius Gedminas mar...@gedmin.as wrote:
On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 01:36:37PM -0500, Benji York wrote:
Here's another idea: a testrunner option that takes a file name and line
number and inserts a breakpoint at that position. That way you can get
the same effect
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 4:57 AM, Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.net wrote:
On 2009-11-26 08:43, Michael Howitz wrote:
Am 25.11.2009 um 15:49 schrieb Chris Withers:
[...]
Yes, PyPI is broken if you're an admin of many packages, feel free to
me too on this issue:
...from my perspective.
= Things vaguely approaching consensus =
== General ==
There's a consensus that changes to the ZCA need to be backwards compatible.
The practical definition of that varies for different people.
== Syntactic ==
=== Tuple multi-adaptation ===
Example:
IFoo((bar,
I think I could get fully behind the following proposal that others have made
(Shane I think was one of several?).
IFoo.adapt(...)
IFoo.utility(...)
= Why? =
- This is a significant improvement in terms of being memorable, as far as I'm
concerned. It's also briefer, which is related.
- It
Gary Poster wrote:
I think I could get fully behind the following proposal that others
have made (Shane I think was one of several?).
IFoo.adapt(...)
IFoo.utility(...)
I could get behind this too.
We'd need the current IFoo(context, default) for single adaptation to
continue to work,
On Dec 2, 2009, at 11:09 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
I think I could get fully behind the following proposal that others
have made (Shane I think was one of several?).
IFoo.adapt(...)
IFoo.utility(...)
I could get behind this too.
We'd need the current
Gary Poster wrote:
On Dec 2, 2009, at 11:09 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
I think I could get fully behind the following proposal that
others have made (Shane I think was one of several?).
IFoo.adapt(...)
IFoo.utility(...)
I could get behind this too.
We'd need the
Gary Poster wrote:
I think I could get fully behind the following proposal that others have made
(Shane I think was one of several?).
IFoo.adapt(...)
IFoo.utility(...)
Thinking about it a bit, it strikes me that IFoo.adapt(context) may not
be right. This reads IFoo adapt context, which
On 11/30/2009 10:05 AM, Brian Sutherland wrote:
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:17:41PM +0100, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Tres Seavertsea...@palladion.com wrote:
Hmm, I may be missing something here, but if Foo implements IFoo, then
the getAdapter lookup for it will
On 2009-12-2 23:06, Marius Gedminas wrote:
On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 01:36:37PM -0500, Benji York wrote:
Here's another idea: a testrunner option that takes a file name and line
number and inserts a breakpoint at that position. That way you can get
the same effect as editing the code without
31 matches
Mail list logo
