Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 4.0, maybe not such a bad idea...

2009-04-02 Thread Chris Withers
Jim Fulton wrote: What Martijn has announced and is already being worked on extensively. - Zope A 4.0 What was to be Zope 2.12 - Zope B 4.0 Whatever the next pending release of the Zope 3 appserver stuff was to be. (Need to keep the Canonical and ZC guys happy afterall ;-) )

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 4.0, maybe not such a bad idea...

2009-04-02 Thread Chris Withers
Jim Fulton wrote: We and canonical use the Zope Framework. We don't use an application. Zope (aka Zope 2) is an extensible application. We (ZC and Canonical and others) assemble components from the Zope Framework to build our own applications. Hmm, maybe I got this wrong, but Gary

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 4.0, maybe not such a bad idea...

2009-04-02 Thread Chris Withers
Andreas Jung wrote: Andrew others have been working on this issue at the sprint. There is consensus that www.zope.org must be turned into landing page with some mission statement and then links to the related subprojects. The current zope.org site should be moved to old.zope.org (it must

Re: [Zope-dev] [Zope] Zope 4.0, maybe not such a bad idea...

2009-04-02 Thread Chris Withers
Andrew Milton wrote: | - mature | - stable | - maybe not the best choice for new development. ^ for you Indeed, but classic doesn't have any bad connotations as far as I'm concerned, and it'll need to keep living as long as Plone relies on it, which will be

Re: [Zope-dev] [Zope] Zope 4.0, maybe not such a bad idea...

2009-04-02 Thread Chris Withers
Andrew Milton wrote: | Why does it need to keep living even at old.zope.org? Why do you care if it does? Because someone needs to look after the (rather large, ancient and crufty) zope instance in which it lives, and it keeps on tripping up innocent passers-by. I don't think many of these

Re: [Zope-dev] [Zope] Zope 4.0, maybe not such a bad idea...

2009-04-02 Thread Chris Withers
Andrew Milton wrote: | Indeed, but classic doesn't have any bad connotations as far as I'm | concerned, and it'll need to keep living as long as Plone relies on it, | which will be forever... Plenty of people use it without plone. You might want to crawl out of the vacuum you live in.

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 4.0, maybe not such a bad idea...

2009-04-02 Thread Chris Withers
Andreas Jung wrote: Because we can't break existing download URL - neither to old Zope releases I'd imagine the full set of releases would appear on the respective parts of classic.zope.org or advanced.zope.org... nor to old product releases. I wonder how many of these are actually safe

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 4.0, maybe not such a bad idea...

2009-04-02 Thread Chris Withers
Andreas Jung wrote: I'd imagine the full set of releases would appear on the respective parts of classic.zope.org or advanced.zope.org... *shrug* I don't care if those releases on the new zope2.zope.org Please not zope2.zope.org, the insane version naming has *got* to stop... microsite or

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 4.0, maybe not such a bad idea...

2009-04-02 Thread Chris Withers
Andreas Jung wrote: We might discuss this unhurriedly. To sleep and being in vacation mood in order to discuss this now :-) At least the term 'classic' is a NO-GO for me. Why? Would you prefer 'a' or maybe 'old'? ;-) microsite or somewhere else. The point is that the release should remain

Re: [Zope-dev] [Zope-Annce] Announcing: Zope 4.0 project

2009-04-01 Thread Chris Withers
*looks at the date* *sigh* I'll go back to my cave now... Chris Chris Withers wrote: Tres Seaver wrote: On behalf of the Zope community, I am pleased to announce the creation of the Zope 4.0 project. After extensive discussion with the Zope wizards in conclave at PyCon 2009, the new

Re: [Zope-dev] [Zope-Annce] Announcing: Zope 4.0 project

2009-04-01 Thread Chris Withers
Tres Seaver wrote: On behalf of the Zope community, I am pleased to announce the creation of the Zope 4.0 project. After extensive discussion with the Zope wizards in conclave at PyCon 2009, the new project's website has been launched: http://zopefour.org/ Er? Little more context and

[Zope-dev] ZEO for Zope 2.12.0a1 from buildout with no funky recipes ; -)

2009-03-30 Thread Chris Withers
Hi, Well, I made some progress in that ZEO instances are just fine to get going. Here's the buildout.cfg: [buildout] parts = zeoinstance extends = versions2.cfg [zeoinstance] recipe = zc.recipe.egg eggs = ZODB3 entry-points= runzeo=ZEO.runzeo:main zeoctl=ZEO.zeoctl:main

Re: [Zope-dev] trying out the buildout-based Zope 2.12...

2009-03-29 Thread Chris Withers
Andreas Jung wrote: I think an implementation of a better dependency resolution strategy in buildout would be a good place to start. I think some limited backtracking could go a long way. Anyone interested in working on this? Why would that be a functionality of zc.buildout? I think this

Re: [Zope-dev] trying out the buildout-based Zope 2.12...

2009-03-29 Thread Chris Withers
Tobias Rodäbel wrote: [zope] recipe = zc.recipe.egg:scripts eggs = Zope2 So, this gives you mkzopeinstance, right? (I don't think you need the :scripts It worked, as in no errors, but when I tried mkzopeinstance, it generated an instance, but that instance didn't work: $ bin/runzope

[Zope-dev] progress on Zope 2.12.0a1 from buildout with no funky recipes ; -)

2009-03-29 Thread Chris Withers
Hey All, I've made some progress on this, here's the buildout: [buildout] parts = zopeinstance extends = versions2.cfg [zopeinstance] recipe = zc.recipe.egg eggs = zope2 entry-points= runzope=Zope2.Startup.run:run zopectl=Zope2.Startup.zopectl:main scripts = runzope zopectl

[Zope-dev] trying out the buildout-based Zope 2.12...

2009-03-27 Thread Chris Withers
Hey All, I'm trying to get Zope 2.12 working with buildout, in the absence of docs, I thought I'd try: [buildout] parts = zopetest [zopetest] recipe = zc.recipe.egg interpreter = py eggs = zope2 ...and was rewarded with: Got zope.principalregistry 3.7.0. While: Installing zopetest.

Re: [Zope-dev] trying out the buildout-based Zope 2.12...

2009-03-27 Thread Chris Withers
Chris Withers wrote: Got zope.principalregistry 3.7.0. While: Installing zopetest. Error: There is a version conflict. We already have: zope.component 3.5.1 but zope.app.security 3.7.0 requires 'zope.component=3.6.0'. Okay, so I thought I'd be smart and try the following buildout.cfg

Re: [Zope-dev] trying out the buildout-based Zope 2.12...

2009-03-27 Thread Chris Withers
Andreas Jung wrote: Stop with your approach right now until we have understood what's going wrong. Working with a SVN checkout from the trunk works (as said). I'm interested in actually solving what's wrong ;-) This feels like buildout doing something wrong, at the very least. It has a

Re: [Zope-dev] trying out the buildout-based Zope 2.12...

2009-03-27 Thread Chris Withers
Andreas Jung wrote: One last hint: you might try using 'pip' (instead of 'easy_install'). 'pip -v' gives you better information about the dependencies pulled in and where (but it does not tell you why - at least not obviously). Engage brain ;-) I'm not using easy_install, I'm using

Re: [Zope-dev] trying out the buildout-based Zope 2.12...

2009-03-27 Thread Chris Withers
Paul Winkler wrote: I'm not using easy_install, I'm using buildout... (yeah, I know buildout uses easy_install, but...) One possibility: try using http://pypi.python.org/pypi/gp.recipe.pip ? I need to be totally upfront about this: I'm interested in finding out why something that *should*

Re: [Zope-dev] trying out the buildout-based Zope 2.12...

2009-03-27 Thread Chris Withers
Paul Winkler wrote: Well, yeah. The point of the suggestion was specifically to help you get more info about the dependency chain, since pip is more verbose about that than easy_install is. Well, running buildout -v gives some good clues, a piece of which is this: Getting required

Re: [Zope-dev] trying out the buildout-based Zope 2.12...

2009-03-27 Thread Chris Withers
Chris Withers wrote: Paul Winkler wrote: Well, yeah. The point of the suggestion was specifically to help you get more info about the dependency chain, since pip is more verbose about that than easy_install is. Well, running buildout -v gives some good clues, a piece of which

Re: [Zope-dev] trying out the buildout-based Zope 2.12...

2009-03-27 Thread Chris Withers
Tobias Rodäbel wrote: Hi, had the same issue tonight. I'm using attached versions.cfg for now. That works quite well for me. Which issue is this supposed to help with? Chris ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org

Re: [Zope-dev] trying out the buildout-based Zope 2.12...

2009-03-27 Thread Chris Withers
Tobias Rodäbel wrote: On 28.03.2009, at 00:30, Chris Withers wrote: Tobias Rodäbel wrote: Hi, had the same issue tonight. I'm using attached versions.cfg for now. That works quite well for me. Which issue is this supposed to help with? Using zc.buildout. There are currently two

Re: [Zope-dev] trying out the buildout-based Zope 2.12...

2009-03-27 Thread Chris Withers
Tobias Rodäbel wrote: My versions.cfg resolved all version conflicts mentioned within this thread. Cool, I'll bear it in mind, but right now I want to try and actually fix things so they work like they should :-) cheers, Chris ___ Zope-Dev

Re: [Zope-dev] PyCon?

2009-03-25 Thread Chris Withers
Gary Poster wrote: Email is maybe the best public way to get in touch with me, though I'm happy to share cell phone/skype info privately. Ditto. I'm here how, anyone fancy food/drink/entertainment this evening? Chris ___ Zope-Dev maillist -

[Zope-dev] PyCon?

2009-03-24 Thread Chris Withers
Hey All, Who's around at PyCon? If so, when/where are we meeting up? Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org

Re: [Zope-dev] setup.py extra dependencies

2009-03-23 Thread Chris Withers
Christian Theune wrote: Wichert. Be aware of nose issue #102: http://code.google.com/p/python-nose/issues/detail?id=102 Is there a particular reason to keep using the test_suite convention? Personally I much prefer nose's habit of automatically picking up tests. I think there is not.

Re: [Zope-dev] Question: additional context for IAnnotations adapter?

2009-03-23 Thread Chris Withers
Jacob Holm wrote: Can someone confirm to me whether or not manually specifying the context as I have in the example above would work, or would I need to do: adapter1 = getAdapter(a,ISomething,context=siteA) adapter2 = getAdapter(b,ISomething,context=siteB) In general, using

Re: [Zope-dev] setting missing minimum version in setup.py

2009-03-23 Thread Chris Withers
Martijn Faassen wrote: The version requirements in setup.py should always be open. The most widely open requirement is this: zope.foo but another open requirement is this: zope.foo = 1.3 I also don't recall open requirements bringing development to a halt? I think more specific

Re: [Zope-dev] setting missing minimum version in setup.py

2009-03-23 Thread Chris Withers
Benji York wrote: Lets say that someone adds two bug fixes to zope.foo (call them fix A and fix B) and then does a release. Fix A requires zope.bar = 1.5 and fix B doesn't. If I want to benefit from fix B in my app (and don't use the feature fix A repaired), then I shouldn't be forced to

Re: [Zope-dev] setting missing minimum version in setup.py

2009-03-23 Thread Chris Withers
Stephan Richter wrote: Updgrading to zope.foo 1.3.x might not be easy for various reasons that I think most of us experienced (I know I did). Releasing a new zope.bar version might not be possible, if person B does not have access. If a fix is possible, and someone backports it, a release

Re: [Zope-dev] setting missing minimum version in setup.py

2009-03-23 Thread Chris Withers
Roger Ineichen wrote: The consequence of fixing versions is to skip backporting. There is no way to have both. Rubbish. Martijn already showed what would need to happen here: the package specifying the depenedency needs a quick, 3rd point release to add the backported releases as suitable.

Re: [Zope-dev] [Fwd: [Bug 343079] [NEW] Broken distribution (2009-03-15)]

2009-03-23 Thread Chris Withers
Tres Seaver wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- I mean an index which supplies the 'simple' PyPI interface, such that we could tell people to 'easy_install' from it, e.g.: $ /path/to/bin/easy_install -i http://kgs.zope.org/Zope2/2.1.2 But how do you then set things up when you want

Re: [Zope-dev] Windows binary egg for zope.interface 3.5.1?

2009-03-23 Thread Chris Withers
Hanno Schlichting wrote: Hi. Chris Withers wrote: Got zope.interface 3.5.1. Any chance someone could roll and release a Windows binary egg for this? I just uploaded binary Windows eggs for Python 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6. Thanks :-) Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python

Re: [Zope-dev] setting missing minimum version in setup.py

2009-03-23 Thread Chris Withers
Wichert Akkerman wrote: I see no useful different between x.y and x.y.z here. All I want is if someone installs one of our packages that package will work as expected. If a package will only work with a certain revisions of a dependent package it has to state say. Yes. If we do not do that

Re: [Zope-dev] setting missing minimum version in setup.py

2009-03-23 Thread Chris Withers
Martijn Faassen wrote: x.y.z is a bugfix release. If we do it right, there will be no change in the API and only small changes in misbehavior. Therefore it seems far less likely to me that a package ends *needing* to depend on a minimum version. I don't agree. If your package hsa bugs

Re: [Zope-dev] setting missing minimum version in setup.py

2009-03-23 Thread Chris Withers
Roger Ineichen wrote: What do you do if version x.y works with d.e.d but not with d.e.e (because it's borken) and fixed in d.e.f. You release x.y.1 which has dependencies on d.e.d, =d.e.f. This is a use case where fixing versions in packages doesn't work Sure it does. This is the benefit

[Zope-dev] Windows binary egg for zope.interface 3.5.1?

2009-03-17 Thread Chris Withers
Hi All (maybe just Jim? ;-) ), Just did a buildout involving zope.interface and got: Getting distribution for 'zope.interface'. WARNING: An optional code optimization (C extension) could not be compiled.

Re: [Zope-dev] Question: additional context for IAnnotations adapter?

2009-03-13 Thread Chris Withers
Dan Korostelev wrote: 2009/3/9 Dieter Maurer die...@handshake.de: Jacob Holm wrote at 2009-3-6 01:55 +0100: ... I added it while working for ZC two years ago. It was needed to support a use case where the context used for looking up the annotation was not necessarily the current site. I

Re: [Zope-dev] deprecating the deprecation system?

2009-03-08 Thread Chris Withers
Martijn Faassen wrote: Thoughts? + sys.maxint to all of that from me :-) I think documenting that something is going to go away is useful, but ultimately, people only really worry about it when something stops working. I've got way to bored to the millions of meaningless deprecation warnings

[Zope-dev] choice of test runner...

2009-03-08 Thread Chris Withers
Wichert Akkerman wrote: I would like to see a move away from zope testing frameworks to a more standard testing infrastructure: setup.py test, possibly combined with using nose. I'd love to see a side-by-side feature comparison of the major python test discovering and runner frameworks. It

Re: [Zope-dev] non-zodb persistent registries

2009-03-08 Thread Chris Withers
Tres Seaver wrote: The reason being that, for a long time, I've wanted to see a persistent registry that stored in a rdb rather than zodb. I don't know what that would look like. I have ideas about what I'd like it to look like from a user's perspective, but sadly not much in the way of

Re: [Zope-dev] Dependency of zope.deprecation in zope.configuration

2009-03-05 Thread Chris Withers
Baiju M wrote: I have pasted the relevant code here: def resolve(self, dottedname): Resolve a dotted name to an object. I wonder why zope.dottedname isn't being used here either? Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting -

Re: [Zope-dev] SVN: zope.component/trunk/ Merge the 'tseaver-wo_zope_deferredimport' branch:

2009-03-05 Thread Chris Withers
Martijn Faassen wrote: I think we can only make the correct determination if we get an idea of the performance implications. If it turns out the C code brings significant speedups in real-world applications, we should create a zope.hookable with a Python + C implementation. Even if it

[Zope-dev] non-zodb persistent registries

2009-03-05 Thread Chris Withers
Hey Tres, Tres Seaver wrote: 2. Move the persistent registry stuff out into another package, including whatever support is needed to allow for people to migrate existing persistent references. Effectively, this moves one extra out to a package, *including* its testing dependencies.

Re: [Zope-dev] Coding style clarifications

2009-03-04 Thread Chris Withers
Dieter Maurer wrote: Zvezdan Petkovic wrote at 2009-2-19 13:06 -0500: I can adapt to any style and believe that the fine grain details should not be dogmatically enforced but rather allow for variations in such subjective preferences. +1 + sys.maxint Chris -- Simplistix - Content

Re: [Zope-dev] the Zope Framework project

2009-03-04 Thread Chris Withers
Chris McDonough wrote: I believe to get success here (measured as gaining new Python developer users), our path forward needs to be way, way, way more radical and needs to involve making hard choices that treat individual packages on their own merit rather than even considering their role as

Re: [Zope-dev] the Zope Framework project

2009-03-02 Thread Chris Withers
Chris McDonough wrote: - discourage the contribution of stop energy (discourage the utterances of don't, stop, this is wrong, Well, unless it is... - focusing on externalizing software; each egg should stand on its own as something that a non-Zope person would be able to understand and

Re: [Zope-dev] Overhauling the Zope 2 presentation on zope.org

2009-02-19 Thread Chris Withers
Andreas Jung wrote: because of the failure of the new.zope.org project I would like to put the hat on for reorganizing the Zope 2 presentation on zope.org. Is this failure official or is there just no action on this? Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting

Re: [Zope-dev] Overhauling the Zope 2 presentation on zope.org

2009-02-19 Thread Chris Withers
Andreas Jung wrote: See this thread: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-web/2009-January/thread.html Shame, oh well, I think dictatorship is the way to go and I think you'd make a pretty good dictator, so go for it :-) Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting

Re: [Zope-dev] Translations for zope packages.

2009-02-13 Thread Chris Withers
Adam GROSZER wrote: Though no idea how the above could be solved with FOSS tools. You know Launchpad is being open sourced, right? Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___

Re: [Zope-dev] opensp...@pycon 2009 about Zope/Repoze/Grok/Deliverence etc.

2009-02-13 Thread Chris Withers
Andreas Jung wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09.02.2009 20:18 Uhr, Hanno Schlichting wrote: Lennart Regebro wrote: So, I propose to have an Open Space session at PyCon, Chicago, March 27-29 . Sounds good. Count me in. Will be there as well. Me too, and if

[Zope-dev] Zope 2 from buildout?

2009-02-13 Thread Chris Withers
Hanno Schlichting wrote: I had time to work on this on our Berlinale Sprint and this is now done! I marked the old Zope2.buildout area as retired after moving the code, so we don't confuse people anymore with two locations doing the same. Out of interest, where can I learn more about Zope 2

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2 from buildout?

2009-02-13 Thread Chris Withers
Tres Seaver wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris Withers wrote: Hanno Schlichting wrote: I had time to work on this on our Berlinale Sprint and this is now done! I marked the old Zope2.buildout area as retired after moving the code, so we don't confuse people

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2 from buildout?

2009-02-13 Thread Chris Withers
Tres Seaver wrote: At this point, the SVN trunk *is* a buildout: $ svn co svn+ssh://svn.zope.org/repos/main/Zope/trunk Zope-trunk ... $ cd Zope-trunk $ /oath/to/python2.5 bootstrap.py ... $ bin/buildout Another question... If I have a project that's Zope 2 based, how do I specify

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2 from buildout?

2009-02-13 Thread Chris Withers
Tres Seaver wrote: I guess this equates to what does a Zope 2 instance look like now that we're buildout-based? install_requires=['Zope2=2.12dev'], Okay, how do I get zopectl and runzope? Where do I put my zope.conf? Where do I put old-school products? What would the following

Re: [Zope-dev] zope.security changes

2009-02-06 Thread Chris Withers
Dieter Maurer wrote: Chris Withers wrote at 2009-1-30 18:50 +: Brian Sutherland wrote: zope.configuration.x zope.configuration.y Please don't, having namespace packages that contain files (as zope.configuration already does) breaks setuptools. Then setuptools needs fixing

[Zope-dev] multiple packages in the same namespace

2009-02-06 Thread Chris Withers
Jim Fulton wrote: zope.configuration isn't a namespace package. It is simply a package with subpackages. Does setuptools support something like: packagea: packagea/__init__.py packagea/amodule.py packagea.something: packagea/__init__.py packagea/something/__init__.py

Re: [Zope-dev] Lower default socket timeout for buildout?

2009-02-06 Thread Chris Withers
Andreas Jung wrote: At least I added a patch to buildout at some time ago in order to make the default timeout configurable through a command-line option (or was it a buildout options - I can't remember). Would be good to know where this lives and/or how Christian was limiting the timeout for

Re: [Zope-dev] Lower default socket timeout for buildout?

2009-02-06 Thread Chris Withers
Christian Theune wrote: It's only a command line option right now. Which one? Making it configurable through a buildout option would be nice too. Yes, so it can live in default.cfg! Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting -

Re: [Zope-dev] Plans for Zope 2.12

2009-02-06 Thread Chris Withers
Lennart Regebro wrote: On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:38, Chris Withers ch...@simplistix.co.uk wrote: Note that Jim never explained to me how he does these audits, but I gathered some methods he used in conversations. I think I did a pretty thorough job during the review. Yeah, this disturbs me

Re: [Zope-dev] Plans for Zope 2.12

2009-02-06 Thread Chris Withers
Tres Seaver wrote: Ugh. -1 to any attempt to use space suits in Z2. I would rather move to a model which made it easy to mark some / all TTW objects as trusted, disabling security checks altogether: the untrusted users can edit TTW code use case is pretty much irrelevant for any site I

Re: [Zope-dev] zope.security changes

2009-01-30 Thread Chris Withers
Fred Drake wrote: On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 4:01 AM, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com wrote: I believe it'd be nicer to extract any ZCML related stuff from zope.component at some point and put it into zope.componentzcml or something like that. We could then decide to move the class and

Re: [Zope-dev] zope.security changes

2009-01-30 Thread Chris Withers
Martijn Faassen wrote: This makes a lot more sense to me than having the ZCML support in either zope.component or zope.security. Indeed, surely all zcml stuff belongs in zope.configuration anyway? No, not there either, as zope.configuration doesn't define *any* directives except the basic

Re: [Zope-dev] zope.security changes

2009-01-30 Thread Chris Withers
Brian Sutherland wrote: zope.configuration.x zope.configuration.y Please don't, having namespace packages that contain files (as zope.configuration already does) breaks setuptools. Then setuptools needs fixing. There's no reason why zope.configuration and zope.configuration.x shouldn't

Re: [Zope-dev] Plans for Zope 2.12

2009-01-27 Thread Chris Withers
Dieter Maurer wrote: Chris Withers wrote at 2009-1-22 09:38 +: ... One thing that myself and Shane talked briefly about on this list was re-implementing the AST manipulation as dissallow-by-default filter rather than a straight manipulation. That way, unexpected stuff should

Re: [Zope-dev] Plans for Zope 2.12

2009-01-27 Thread Chris Withers
Shane Hathaway wrote: Chris Withers wrote: I don't think this is such a huge change, it's a change in the style of what RP does already, not a complete re-implementation... OTOH, with Python 3 now released, it seems unlikely that we'll see any new syntax added to Python 2.x. So RP

Re: [Zope-dev] Plans for Zope 2.12

2009-01-22 Thread Chris Withers
Andreas Jung wrote: - - removing ZClasses completely ...into a seperate egg/product, right? - - how do to a traditional SVN checkout of the Zope 2 and the related Zope 3 modules? The Zope2.buildout maintains its dependencies through a KGS - the old-style SVN checkout uses svn:external.

Re: [Zope-dev] Plans for Zope 2.12

2009-01-22 Thread Chris Withers
Stephan Richter wrote: On Wednesday 21 January 2009, Andreas Jung wrote: - RestrictedPython security audit: such an audit has been made by Stefan and Sidnei. I am not qualified to speak about the correctness of the audit. I assume they know what they were doing. Unless objections one

Re: [Zope-dev] Plans for Zope 2.12

2009-01-22 Thread Chris Withers
Andreas Jung wrote: It's a shame Jim has so little time to spend on this... Take your hat and collect some money for hiring Jim :-) Zope Corp chose to assume the Zope brand for themselves, given the prevelence of Zope 2 and RestrictedPython, it'd be nice if they could devote some of Jim's

Re: [Zope-dev] zope.globalrequest?

2009-01-16 Thread Chris Withers
Hanno Schlichting wrote: Community in its entirety. Inventing a zope2 or z2c namespace is a poor choice. Why? That seems like the perfect namespace for this particular package... Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk

Re: [Zope-dev] Next Step to Bug Resolution???

2009-01-16 Thread Chris Withers
Tim Cook wrote: I would also like for you to explain just what it is about my attitude that you find so offensive/problematic? As a general rule of thumb, anyone who posts with more than on exlamation mark is likely on the wrong track. Cross posting to several lists is also a bit of a

Re: [Zope-dev] zope.globalrequest?

2009-01-16 Thread Chris Withers
Andreas Jung wrote: Namespaces are like dust and smoke. We already have enough (pointless) namespaces. So let's stick with zope.* and z3c.* for Zope related packages. Why note merge those two into one then? Personally, I've always seen zope.* as being usable on their own or with either Zope 2

Re: [Zope-dev] Next Step to Bug Resolution???

2009-01-09 Thread Chris Withers
Hedley Roos wrote: Chris mentioned unit tests. You do not have to write a new unit test. What is required is to have a look at the tests and then identify one that is relevant to your problematic method. This test should be very easy to read. The hard part is for you to expand this test to

Re: [Zope-dev] bug in zope.testing 3.7.1?

2009-01-09 Thread Chris Withers
Benji York wrote: On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Chris Withers ch...@simplistix.co.uk wrote: Hi Guys, Line 396 of doctest.py contains code which is, at best, platform-specific (and so a bug) or, more likely, irrelevent. Line 396 of doctest.py from zope.testing 3.7.1 doesn't include

Re: [Zope-dev] adapting to None

2009-01-09 Thread Chris Withers
Shane Hathaway wrote: Chris Withers wrote: Now, you could, for example, then do: IFieldType([]) ...which should return None. I don't understand your example: what is a field type, It's a shortened naem for Type of Field Value, as I said, it could arguably be called IFieldValue

[Zope-dev] Why doesn't subclassing an Interface and overriding __call__ work with the C implementation?

2009-01-09 Thread Chris Withers
Alec Mitchell wrote: class IFieldType(Interface): def __call__(self,*args,**kw): r = Interface.__call__(*args,**kw) if r is empty: return None return r I suspect this would work with the python implementation of Interface, but it certainly

Re: [Zope-dev] [Zope3-Users] Next Step to Bug Resolution???

2008-12-19 Thread Chris Withers
Tim Cook wrote: As I said before I may have miss-diagnosed the problem and may fix may break other things? This is what a full-coverage unit and functional test suit is for. You have got automated tests for all this stuff, right? Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python

[Zope-dev] bug in zope.testing 3.7.1?

2008-12-19 Thread Chris Withers
Hi Guys, Line 396 of doctest.py contains code which is, at best, platform-specific (and so a bug) or, more likely, irrelevent. I have the following code that runs the tests in all my package's docs: def test_suite(): suite = unittest.TestSuite() for path in \

Re: [Zope-dev] adapting to None

2008-12-15 Thread Chris Withers
Marius Gedminas wrote: doesn't fail with an exception, I can assume that ISomeInterface.providedBy(adapter) ...which in this case should return True, as None does indeed implement the interface in question. *That's* what I'm looking for help with, not judgement on whether adapting to

Re: [Zope-dev] adapting to None

2008-12-14 Thread Chris Withers
Dieter Maurer wrote: I *DO* want that I can rely on the result of IInterface(...) really providing IInterface (and not be forced to check against all potential values others invented to circumvent the adaptation semantics). Thus, I hope, you will not get your wish :-) FFS, I'm not asking for

Re: [Zope-dev] adapting to None

2008-12-13 Thread Chris Withers
Dieter Maurer wrote: Then, use something different from adaptation (as adaptation does not fit your wishes). This is what I'm trying to do with subclassing, and my question was why that subclassing wasn't working... I expect that your adapter factory can raise ComponentLookupError when it

[Zope-dev] adapting to None

2008-12-12 Thread Chris Withers
Hi All, I have a need to be able to adapting certain objects to None, eg: def some_adapter(obj): if something: return None return somethingelse This is tricky, since returning None from an adapter results in a TypeError. I eventually came up with the idea of having a subclass of

Re: [Zope-dev] zope.dottedname and releases

2008-12-03 Thread Chris Withers
Chris Withers wrote: I merged my testcases into those for zope.dottedname and tidied up the docs a bit, no changes to the code at all. However, I'd like to role out a 3.4.3 release with these new docs in. Thanks to some help from Stephan: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/zope.dottedname/3.4.3

[Zope-dev] zope.dottedname and releases

2008-12-02 Thread Chris Withers
Hi All, How do I go about getting myself added to the Zope 3 packages so I can do releases to PyPI? (my PyPI username is chrisw) I'm not planning on doing this without getting consent from the powers that be (unless its trivial, as in this case) but it'd be handy to roll out releases if

Re: [Zope-dev] SVN: Sandbox/malthe/chameleon.core/src/chameleon/core/utils.py Catch all exceptions; it's not required to be able to determine length.

2008-11-28 Thread Chris Withers
Tres Seaver wrote: Hmm, some exceptions should never be caught (KeyboardInterrupt, SystemExit, ConflictError). indeed, changing to: except Exception: ...will do the right thing for Python = 2.5 cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting -

Re: [Zope-dev] deprecate http://download.zope.org/distribution

2008-11-28 Thread Chris Withers
Martijn Faassen wrote: It's clearly the case that people who are reading this thread know how to avoid download.zope.org. The people who are not reading this thread just get tough luck from the Zope community when their software doesn't work anymore. No, that's not quite what I said. I'm

Re: [Zope-dev] working with SUF

2008-11-21 Thread Chris Withers
abhishek dastidar wrote: Hi all, You're on the wrong list, you want [EMAIL PROTECTED] as detailed on the product's page at simplistix.co.uk I am looking at how to use SimpleUserFolder to simulate users in zope.Since I don't need to add/edit users in zope,I only added the getUserDetails in

Re: [Zope-dev] deprecate http://download.zope.org/distribution

2008-11-20 Thread Chris Withers
Martijn Faassen wrote: If we released a version of Grok, say, back in the day that relied on an egg that's in that location, and someone built an application back in the day that relies on that version of Grok, and then they wrote a nice INSTALL.txt that said to the sysadmin how to install

Re: [Zope-dev] ZCatalog caching with memcached

2008-10-31 Thread Chris Withers
Hedley Roos wrote: Since memcached is distributed only a single Zope client needs to perform that query and the result is available to all other Zope clients. This is where you'll get the big win: no need to load all the catalog-related objects into the zodb cache on all the clients which

Re: [Zope-dev] Bounty for Breaking RestrictedPython?

2008-10-31 Thread Chris Withers
Alan Runyan wrote: So maybe we could crowd source the RestrictedPython problem? I actually tried this at EPC this year: I was offering a beer for anyone who could break out of the test environment and a bottle of champagne for anyone who did so and provided a test and patch that fixed the

Re: [Zope-dev] Issues with restricted Python (was Re: Zope 2.12 - supported Python versions)

2008-10-31 Thread Chris Withers
Shane Hathaway wrote: Yes, and if such a change leads to faster adoption of new Python releases by Zope, then it seems like a worthwhile effort. Instead of a tree mutator, RestrictedPython would use a tree copier with a filter. New Python features would initially not be supported at all, but

Re: [Zope-dev] Proposal: Backporting some Python 2.5/2.6 fixes

2008-10-30 Thread Chris Withers
Sidnei da Silva wrote: I would like to propose backporting some of the fixes needed for Python 2.5 and 2.6 all the way down to Zope 2.10. The fixes that would be backported would only be those that deal with syntax changes (eg: 'with' and 'as' keyword being used as variables, relative imports)

Re: [Zope-dev] Issues with restricted Python (was Re: Zope 2.12 - supported Python versions)

2008-10-24 Thread Chris Withers
Jim Fulton wrote: The problem is that it it starts with an environment in which things are allowed by default, and takes things away. This means that if anything is forgotten, then you end up with holes. Isn't there a way we could change the AST manipulation such that we start with

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.12 - supported Python versions

2008-10-21 Thread Chris Withers
Sidnei da Silva wrote: I always was under the impression that Jim feared the code and the required security audit was perceived as a major painful undertaking. That was my perception too. But after looking at the code it is really not bad at all. The PyPy guys, who seem to be the authority

Re: [Zope-dev] zope.component: calling an Interface and calling queryAdapter give differing results

2008-10-03 Thread Chris Withers
Tres Seaver wrote: I guess it must be, since calling an interface already does some adaptation. No, there is no dependency: zope.interface defines a hook point that zope.component uses. In the absence of zope.component, zope.interface uses a default implementation. That sound pretty icky.

Re: [Zope-dev] zope.component: calling an Interface and calling queryAdapter give differing results

2008-09-30 Thread Chris Withers
Brandon Craig Rhodes wrote: I'm encouraged by the fact that this time it looks like people with time are interested enough to actually begin producing code? At the time that I made the 2007 proposal I was still very new to the code base and never got the courage up (or time available) to

Re: [Zope-dev] RFC: adding support for testing from bare setuptools

2008-09-22 Thread Chris Withers
Tres Seaver wrote: Without monkeypatching setuptools, we can't replace the testrunner it uses, Perhaps we can submit a patch to setuptools that allows the testrunner to be specified. I'm sure people using nose, etc, would be happy about this as well and I can't see Phil Eby be too unhappy

Re: [Zope-dev] Dependencies and future of zope 3

2008-09-08 Thread Chris Withers
Andreas Jung wrote: This is a big issue? I don't think so. Disks are cheap and usually you don't get in touch with the dependent modules under the hood - except for debugging :-) I don't agree. I think making the dependencies fewer would result is easier re-use of bits of zope, which

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >