Martin Aspeli wrote at 2009-4-12 18:31 +0800:
Finally, there is not total parity between Zope 2 security and Zope 3
security. Zope 2 cannot protect 'property set', for example.
Since Zope 2.8, Zope 2 could in principle -- and until quite recently
I thought, it really can: it only fails
Martin Aspeli wrote at 2009-4-12 18:31 +0800:
...
3) Change the Permission class in AccessControl so that it tries to
look up an IPermission utility and use the title of that utility as the
permission name, falling back on the current behaviour of using the
passed permission name directly.
Chris Withers wrote at 2009-4-13 03:14 +0100:
The context for this is trying to get ParsedXML 1.5 running on Zope 2.12
under Python 2.5 (don't ask why!)
Anyway, ParsedXML has a class:
class ManageableNodeList(ManageableWrapper, DOMProxy.NodeListProxy,
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2009-4-10 18:33 +0200:
Is anyone interested in maintaining Zope 3?
You should leave a bit more time before you take any drastic actions...
There are holidays, time of intensive other activity,
...
* the thing that has some kind of documentation website - do you
Hanno Schlichting wrote at 2009-4-11 14:35 +0200:
...
In all other debates we seemed to agree on not over specifying
requirements in setup.py files, I wonder why anybody still tries to
follow this route.
Because the way the Zope 2.12a1 egg did it has broken within a few weeks
--
Dieter
Hanno Schlichting wrote at 2009-4-11 15:05 +0200:
...
+1, to declaring Zope 3 dead. That should allow us to refactor the
remaining packages much more aggressively and reduce the dependencies.
You (Zope developers) are very fast in declaring things dead and
destroy things application developers
Lennart Regebro wrote at 2009-4-11 16:12 +0200:
...
Does easy_install keep track of already installed dependencies and
refuse to install it if it break dependencies?
easy_install checks dependencies only at installation time -- for the egg
that is installed (not for those that are already
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2009-4-8 15:31 +0200:
...
In order to make Zope 2 and Zope 3 fit the pattern, it'd be nice if they
had names that fit the Zope is a project, not software pattern. We
could rename Zope 2 to Zope Classic, as was suggested. I think we should
also rename Zope 3 to
Wichert Akkerman wrote at 2009-4-9 10:40 +0200:
Previously Shane Hathaway wrote:
discussion type=bikeshed
Tres Seaver wrote:
WRT the Framework name: framework is a misleading name for the
collection of packages salvaged from the new Coke effort: it is
actually a *bunch* of frameworks,
Christian Theune wrote at 2009-4-3 08:45 +0200:
...
I don't want to change the process structure: I only want to assure that
the processes we start also quit.
Then no objection from me.
--
Dieter
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
Chris Withers wrote at 2009-4-2 20:36 +0100:
...
Personally, I evaluate such eggs in a sandbox, and then add them to the
project-specific index once I'm sure that they work with the other
software in the index: I don't use PyPI at all when building out
production sites.
That seems overly
Chris Withers wrote at 2009-4-2 20:42 +0100:
...
KGS the
concept is very easy to implement; you just make available on some URL a
buildout versions.cfg, or you run your own package index.
OK, the former I can see happening on an end-user project, the latter is
just too much work.
Tres has
Chris Withers wrote at 2009-4-2 21:29 +0100:
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
Marius Gedminas wrote at 2009-4-3 01:34 +0300:
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 07:31:00PM +0100, Chris Withers wrote:
So, svn.zope.org causes me pain at the moment:
- it uses the bizarre svn or svn+ssh protocols, which I find annoying
(ports blocked on routers, can't check with a browser, etc)
+10
Christian Theune wrote at 2009-4-2 13:30 +0200:
if tests spawn non-daemon threads, then the test runner can get stuck.
The easiest way that I see is to always --exit-with-status and to make
--exist-with-status also call sys.exit() when the tests passed.
I do not understand the implication.
Do
Chris Withers wrote at 2009-4-2 19:44 +0100:
...
I prefer using password-protected (as opposed to key-protected) https.
What do other people prefer?
I am fine with the ssh access.
True, the initial setup was a bit difficult (the key program
did not like the . in d.maurer -- but forgot to tell
Jacob Holm wrote at 2009-4-2 20:44 +0200:
...
For write access I completely agree. For read-only unauthenticated
access it would be nice to be able to use http(s). It may be possible to
have it all at the same time.
I have been told that there are mirrors of the Zope SVN repository
providing
Cesar Canassa wrote at 2009-3-30 14:54 -0300:
It would be possible to modify the plonectl script in order to make it run
without using the zdaemon?
As someone modified zopectl to run under Windows without zdaemon
(in newer Zope versions), it should be possible to change
plonectl in a similar way.
Martin Aspeli wrote at 2009-4-1 22:02 +0800:
I'd like to add support for the following:
1) Provider decorator:
@provider(IFoo)
def some_function(context)
pass
I have already searched for this several times -- and was disappointed
about my failure :-)
--
Dieter
Chris Withers wrote at 2009-3-27 16:02 -0500:
...
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
Cesar Canassa wrote at 2009-3-27 19:56 -0300:
Does Zope requires that a root user should exist on system in order to run
properly? I am asking this because when I try to run Zope as a daemon I got
this:
$ ./plonectl start
instance: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unlinking stale socket
Jim Fulton wrote at 2009-3-29 12:02 -0400:
...
2. Backtracking is more practical in buildout than with easy_install.
easy_install (not sure about pip) does conflict detection/resolution
at run time, whereas buildout does it at build time. Slow conflict
resolution is a lot more practical
Christian Theune wrote at 2009-3-23 14:44 +0100:
...
I usually just run the tests that I'm interested (-s or -t or a
combination) in during those times. I never had to go in and comment out
a test_suite function.
I had when I had run the ZODB test suite. Some tests deterministically
had hang --
In order to test my external 'ZClasses' implementation,
I easy_installed Zope2 (about 1 hour ago) -- but unfortunately,
the distribution is broken: version conflict zope.component 3.5.1 versus
zope.component 3.6.0.
Maybe, the eggification of Zope2 will not turn out to be an advantage --
at least
The Zope 2.12 documention tells that the test command was removed
from zopectl.
test was a convenient way to test products and packages in the
context of the instance. How is this use case now supported?
--
Dieter
___
Zope-Dev maillist -
The documentation on PyPI tells to look into doc/INSTALL.txt
to find installation instructions.
However, doc is not installed by the standard easy_install process.
Therefore, it is not so easy to find it.
Relevant documentation should be installed by the standard easy_install
process (it should
Andreas Jung wrote at 2009-3-15 08:53 +0100:
On 15.03.2009 8:31 Uhr, Dieter Maurer wrote:
The Zope 2.12 documention tells that the test command was removed
from zopectl.
Have to investigate that.
test was a convenient way to test products and packages in the
context of the instance. How
Andreas Jung wrote at 2009-3-15 08:56 +0100:
...
On 15.03.2009 8:36 Uhr, Dieter Maurer wrote:
The documentation on PyPI tells to look into doc/INSTALL.txt
to find installation instructions.
However, doc is not installed by the standard easy_install process.
Therefore, it is not so easy
Hanno Schlichting wrote at 2009-3-15 11:10 +0100:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
The Zope 2.12 documention tells that the test command was removed
from zopectl.
test was a convenient way to test products and packages in the
context of the instance. How is this use case now supported?
The normal way
Andreas Jung wrote at 2009-3-15 08:48 +0100:
... Zope2 2.12.1a1 version conflict ...
...
In addition: setuptools 0.6c7 is pretty old and known to be broken in
some ways.
As expected, setuptool 0.6.c7 was not the problem.
After easy_install -U setuptools, an easy_install -U Zope2
leads to
Andreas Jung wrote at 2009-3-15 08:48 +0100:
... Zope2 2.12.0a1 distribution broken ...
...
Try using the traditional
python bootstrap.py
bin/buildout
approach.
That (magically) worked.
--
Dieter
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
Andreas Jung wrote at 2009-3-15 18:36 +0100:
...
test was a convenient way to test products and packages in the
context of the instance. How is this use case now supported?
Go with the buildout approach and use the alltests.cfg for testing
support (see alltests.cfg). Means: work with a SVN
Tres Seaver wrote at 2009-3-11 21:27 -0400:
...
In packages that don't load their own ZCML during the tests, it's harder
to say. One reaction could be that this package doesn't have enough
tests then! Of course another would argue that this is configuration
information only that can be
Tres Seaver wrote at 2009-3-12 14:25 -0400:
...
Sorry, I meant mandatory tests which load ZCML. I'm actually against
ever loading ZCML in tests at all.
If you ship ZCML, you should test it, no?
You will not ship ZCML, but this may not apply to everybody
--
Dieter
Tres Seaver wrote at 2009-3-13 16:20 -0400:
...
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote at 2009-3-12 14:25 -0400:
...
Sorry, I meant mandatory tests which load ZCML. I'm actually against
ever loading ZCML in tests at all.
If you ship ZCML, you should test it, no?
Not necessarily: in fact
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 don't know if the use case is still
relevant to ZC, but the pattern is
Roger Ineichen wrote at 2009-3-8 14:38 +0100:
...
Can you give an example of a meaningless deprecation
warning?
A few of the deprecations I have disliked for a long time:
/home/dieter/Z/Products/Archetypes/__init__.py:15: DeprecationWarning: The
module, 'Products.CMFCore.CMFCorePermissions'
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2009-3-3 00:36 +0100:
...
* how will the community make hard decisions where lots of people
disagree?
You try to achieve consensus. When you do not, you get the chance
that people turn away.
...
* who reminds us of necessary tasks and directions we're going into?
Martin Aspeli wrote at 2009-3-3 17:21 +0900:
...
How many times have we gotten bogged down in semantics or
naming discussions and killed off the momentum behind something?
A clear notion of semantics and well chosen names are important
for any project.
I would not want momentum resulting in
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2009-3-3 22:11 +0100:
...
backwards compatibility at all costs,
I agree that have erred on the side of too much backwards compatibility.
That increased the overhead of changes tremendously and blocked innovation.
Large applications are built upon the framework.
If
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2009-3-5 17:35 +0100:
Perhaps it's time to deprecate the deprecation system.
...
Thoughts?
+1
--
Dieter
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML
Dan Korostelev wrote at 2009-3-5 22:14 +0300:
...
-0.75 for removing functionality extras. I still don't get how extras
are different from additional packages.
I agree with Dan -- and add -1.
The extras are equivalent to almost identical additional packages.
If this makes reasoning more
Chris McDonough wrote at 2009-3-2 12:11 -0500:
...
I'm pretty sure a steering group and a rebranding of existing software is not
going to make us more effective.
+ 1
Here's what I believe would make us more
effective:
- encouraging radical change for experimentation purposes, releasing folks
Andreas Jung wrote at 2009-2-16 19:50 +0100:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 16.02.2009 19:43 Uhr, Dieter Maurer wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote at 2009-2-16 19:20 +0100:
...
Please come off it. Either become an active contributor and participate
in our dictatorship
I will never
Jens Vagelpohl wrote at 2009-2-16 20:43 +0100:
...
On Feb 16, 2009, at 19:43 , Dieter Maurer wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote at 2009-2-16 19:20 +0100:
...
Please come off it. Either become an active contributor and
participate
in our dictatorship
I will never participate in your dictatorship
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
--
Dieter
___
Zope-Dev
Tres Seaver wrote at 2009-2-15 10:45 -0500:
...
At the moment, the book is largely a guide to what can be done with Zope
TTW. DTML is still part of that store: it isn't gone, nor even
deprecated: its just that most core developers prefer not to use it in
most cases. Note that there is still no
Tres Seaver wrote at 2009-2-15 11:03 -0500:
...
I would rather make the case, explaining the tradeoffs, including the
fact that the consensus of the community is as you express, but then let
people make up their own minds.
+1
I hate the tendancy of quite a few Zope core developpers to dictate
Andreas Jung wrote at 2009-2-16 19:20 +0100:
...
Please come off it. Either become an active contributor and participate
in our dictatorship
I will never participate in your dictatorship!
--
Dieter
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
Hanno Schlichting wrote at 2009-2-8 14:14 +0100:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
I'ld rather not see a whole slew of extra packagse appear. I also wonder
how the extra number of packages and increasing size of sys.path
influence performance and restrictions on environments like GAE.
For environments
Jim Fulton wrote at 2009-2-8 13:00 -0500:
...
IMO, introducing an extra is like introducing a new package and in a
rather complicated way.
I agree with the first part of your sentence -- but cannot follow you
with the second part:
How can 'extra' : sequence of required distributions
be
Jim Fulton wrote at 2009-2-10 14:01 -0500:
On Feb 10, 2009, at 1:49 PM, Dieter Maurer wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote at 2009-2-8 13:00 -0500:
...
IMO, introducing an extra is like introducing a new package and in a
rather complicated way.
I agree with the first part of your sentence -- but cannot
Christian Theune wrote at 2009-2-7 09:36 +0100:
...
According to the setuptools documentation and our experiments on the
sprint, this is supposed to work and does work:
When you declare a package to be a namespace package, it means that the
package has no meaningful contents in its __init__.py,
Chris Withers wrote at 2009-2-6 12:31 +:
...
I would find is very unintuitive when configuration were centralized
(in subpackages of zope.configuration) rather than modular.
Configuration belongs to the application or framework component
that depends on this configuration not to
Dan Korostelev wrote at 2009-2-6 14:10 +0300:
...
I still think we need to bug developers that they
need to upgrade their code with deprecation warnings, so we can
eventually remove old imports.
When you abuse deprecation warnings for minor cosmetic issues
you risk that deprecation warnings are
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.
But not for this purpose:
I
Andreas Jung wrote at 2009-1-21 14:55 +0100:
...
TARGET=Python 2.6.X
ACCEPTABLE=Python 2.5
Python 2.4.X would be basically not acceptable but could be used
at your own risk using the --with-python option.
...
- - removing ZClasses completely
But hopefully provided by a separate
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
be allowed by default.
The terms
Hanno Schlichting wrote at 2009-1-23 19:36 +0100:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Tres Seaver wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
- removing ZClasses completely
This is done now.
Wow. This was quick!
Much quicker than fixing bugs reported in the collector :-(
--
Dieter
Andreas Jung wrote at 2009-1-25 10:21 +0100:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 25.01.2009 9:27 Uhr, Dieter Maurer wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote at 2009-1-21 14:55 +0100:
...
TARGET=Python 2.6.X
ACCEPTABLE=Python 2.5
Python 2.4.X would be basically not acceptable but could
Andreas Jung wrote at 2009-1-25 12:53 +0100:
...
- removing ZClasses completely
This is done now.
Wow. This was quick!
Much quicker than fixing bugs reported in the collector :-(
Please stop bitching and fix your favorite bugs in the collector.
You have svn commit right *wink*
I will
Martijn Pieters wrote at 2009-1-25 13:29 +0100:
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 12:56, Dieter Maurer die...@handshake.de wrote:
I plan to provide such a package as dm.ZClasses or (maybe) Zope2.ZClasses
-- of course with some complaints against the Zope release management
in the documentation
Andreas Jung wrote at 2009-1-25 20:19 +0100:
...
Please stop the discussion. The majority of Zope developers considers
the ZClasses programming model as not up2date and not flexible enough
when it comes to extensibility and scalability.
That's why we don't want
ZClasses being part of Zope 2
Roger Ineichen wrote at 2009-1-18 13:04 +0100:
...
IMHO, it is not an anti-pattern:
We have a global site why should we not have a global request?
When Zope is used as a Web Application Server, it is quite
natural to expect a request.
I'm fine with the zope.globalrequest
Tres Seaver wrote at 2009-1-18 11:38 -0500:
...
I don't actually know how this package fits in with either Z2 or Z3: Z2
apps are always able to acquire the request,
This is not the case for localsitemanager delivered local utilities
and we therefore have had several problems.
while Z3 apps
Martin Aspeli wrote at 2009-1-17 11:36 +:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Christian Theune wrote at 2009-1-16 09:06 +0100:
I noticed 'zope.globalrequest' on the PyPI RSS feed today and wonder
about it. IMHO this implements an anti-pattern in an official way
without a warning that this needs
Christian Theune wrote at 2009-1-16 09:06 +0100:
I noticed 'zope.globalrequest' on the PyPI RSS feed today and wonder
about it. IMHO this implements an anti-pattern in an official way
without a warning that this needs to be handled with care.
IMHO, it is not an anti-pattern:
We have a global
Hanno Schlichting wrote at 2009-1-16 10:14 +0100:
Christian Theune wrote:
I noticed 'zope.globalrequest' on the PyPI RSS feed today and wonder
about it. IMHO this implements an anti-pattern in an official way
without a warning that this needs to be handled with care.
The discussion for this
Chris Withers wrote at 2009-1-16 17:00 +:
...
Personally, I've always seen zope.* as being usable on their own or with
either Zope 2 or Zope 3. It seems this package is only usefully
targetted at zope2
I am not so sure.
Accessing the request in a simple standard way may be useful
whenever
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2008-12-19 22:18 +0100:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Dieter Maurer die...@handshake.de wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2008-12-18 16:27 +0100:
...
You should, and likely are, shipping your package with a recommended
list of versions.
Apparently, grok
Tim Cook wrote at 2008-12-18 08:35 -0200:
...
Yeah we use the really cool, robust, well tested and trusted
application server called the Zope Component Architecture because it
really shows the strengths of the open source development process. Oh,
by the way, after everything is installed you
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2008-12-18 16:27 +0100:
...
You should, and likely are, shipping your package with a recommended
list of versions.
Apparently, grok was forced to go this route.
But, in principle, this is undesirable.
Most of my components work with a wide version range of other
Chris Withers wrote at 2008-12-13 02:17 +:
I have a need to be able to adapting certain objects to None, eg:
def some_adapter(obj):
if something:
return None
return somethingelse
Your use case seems to abuse adaptation:
Adaptation to an interface must always return an object
Chris Withers wrote at 2008-12-13 10:18 +:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
I think that in some cases, it would be useful for an adapter factory
to say 'I cannot handle this case' and then the adapter lookup
is continued. Maybe, this is already supported?
Then, maybe, you can use it?
That's exactly
Chris Withers wrote at 2008-12-13 10:42 +:
...
From looking at the python implementation of Interface, __call__ is
indicated to be the method to override, but with the C-based Interface,
this has no effect. Why is that?
*That's* what I'm looking for help with, not judgement on whether
Jean-Michel FRANCOIS wrote at 2008-12-8 11:17 +0100:
Configuration of Zope is a pain. Take a first look there:
http://blip.tv/file/315714
Apache in your case is not the problem. I think this is your zope
configuration (only one thread per instance is a good thing).
I do not think that the
Tres Seaver wrote at 2008-10-17 15:14 -0400:
...
verifyObject/verifyClass is likely not to handle the following
case correctly:
class I(Interface):
def m(...):
...
class C(object):
implements(I)
m = property(lambda self: lambda ...: ...)
Hermann Himmelbauer wrote at 2008-10-17 23:04 +0200:
During testing, I found the following warnings/errors in my zope log:
---
2008-10-17T17:56:50 WARNING ZopePublication Competing writes/reads at ???:
database conflict error (oid 0x06d3, class zc.queue._queue.BucketQueue,
serial this txn
Christian Theune wrote at 2008-10-16 20:27 +0200:
...
Then again, verifyObject is a *very* light way to spot simple errors.
IMHO attributes and methods aren't that different in Python, as using
both may result in exceptions.
Using attributes (not computed one) does not result in exceptions.
Thomas Lotze wrote at 2008-10-16 20:57 +0200:
Christian Theune [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Arguably, the check for an attribute would be sufficient if it checked
whether an attribute implementation is around -- either by a simple
attribute value or a descriptor providing that.
At this point, I
Thomas Lotze wrote at 2008-10-17 19:42 +0200:
Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
...
Instance properties (descriptor on the class) may not define methods
(probably a bug).
I don't understand what you're saying in that last sentence; can you
elaborate?
verifyObject/verifyClass is likely
Thomas Lotze wrote at 2008-10-15 20:55 +0200:
Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I fear your must describe your proposed change more precisely:
Nothing to be afraid of here ;o)
When your problem is the stated use case: verifyObject fails
because something necessary for the interface
Thomas Lotze wrote at 2008-10-15 09:27 +0200:
There has been a problem with zope.interface's verifyObject function
that occurs in conjunction with Python properties: when verifyObject
checks for the presence of an object's attribute, it does so by using
hasattr() which in turn tries a getattr()
Chris Withers wrote at 2008-9-22 19:41 +0100:
Shane Hathaway wrote:
+1 from me as well on IFoo.adapt() with the signature Chris suggested.
zope.component.getMultiAdapter() is only easy to remember if you're a
die-hard Zope coder, while IFoo.adapt() seems more useful to the larger
Python
Paul Winkler wrote at 2008-9-12 09:04 -0400:
Is there a concensus on the best way in zope 2 to handle non-ascii
object IDs? The current restrictions are based on a very old,
gradually updated regex which still isn't right, see for example
https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope2/+bug/143616
There is a
Brian Sutherland wrote at 2008-9-16 09:56 +0200:
I've recently seen a situation where zope.sqlalchemy locked up the
transaction machinery. I'm not sure exactly what happened, but have
attached a failing test for at least one bug which may have caused it.
Hopefully it's self explanatory;)
If
Brian Sutherland wrote at 2008-9-17 12:33 +0200:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 02:01:07PM +0100, Laurence Rowe wrote:
Brian Sutherland wrote:
Hi,
I've recently seen a situation where zope.sqlalchemy locked up the
transaction machinery. I'm not sure exactly what happened, but have
attached a
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2008-9-10 11:32 +0200:
...
As far as I know in XML, attributes without an explicit namespace prefix
are not in any namespace at all. Default namespaces don't apply to
attributes.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-names-20060816/#scoping-defaulting
specifies:
the
Chris Withers wrote at 2008-9-8 18:34 +0100:
...
There's the backward-compatibility issue, which is a showstopper.
There's plenty of code that does this:
adapter = package.interfaces.IFoo(object, None)
Changing the signature as you describe would break all code that does this.
How
Rupesh P Raj wrote at 2008-9-9 13:41 +0530:
I am very newbee to Zope. In my Zope application I want to integrate
UserTrack product (we dont use plone). I placed the UserTrack folder inside
the Products directory, and created an instance of UserTrack inside some of
the other zope products, as
David Pratt wrote at 2008-9-3 20:32 -0300:
Can we also discuss the potential
of only including testing setup for dev eggs and removing testing as
part of a release when the eggs are packaged to pypi or other
repository for consumption.
-1.
This would really only save disk space
--
Dieter
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2008-9-1 14:07 +0200:
...
I've personally thought for some time that it would be quite nice if
all you had to do was call an interface to look up a utility (which is
sort of a multi-adapter of order 0) or to do some kind of adaption, no
matter how many
Chris Withers wrote at 2008-9-1 16:23 +0100:
...
auth = IAuthentication() # utility
auth = IAuthentication(default=None)
langs = IUserPreferredLanguages(request) # adapter
langs = IUserPreferredLanguages(request, default=None)
Tres Seaver wrote at 2008-8-28 15:22 -0400:
I don't think zipped eggs are a win in any real scenario, except
possibly the goofy file-count-limited GAE. I would strongly prefer that
you revert this one change (you can override it in your own
'~/.buildout/default.cfg').
We have observed a
Malthe Borch wrote at 2008-8-29 13:20 +0200:
...
Right, so this is basically a question of whether the following
template is legal or not:
div tal:replace=string:hello world! /
In ZPT it would be, because it automatically assumes this namespace
declaration:
Chris Withers wrote at 2008-8-29 10:25 +0100:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Then, we could get rid of the {get|query}[Multi]Adapter altogether
and consistently use I() with appropriate optional parameters --
what a simplification and homogenization :-)
Yeah, but since when has simplification
Bristow Thankachan wrote at 2008-8-23 15:53 +0530:
We are stuck with a configuration error in porting zope2 to python2.5. Can
anybody help us in fixing configuration error in the module Zope2. The full
log of error message is given below.
...
File
Chris Withers wrote at 2008-8-19 18:30 +0100:
...
class ISomething(Interface): pass
...
class MyClass: implements(ISomething)
...
m = MyClass()
Right, so this does make sense:
ISomething(m)
__main__.MyClass instance at 0x00BED6E8
This does not:
repr(queryAdapter(m,ISomething))
'None'
Jim Fulton wrote at 2008-8-19 17:57 -0400:
While I respect that this feature may have been chosen carefully, it
nevertheless seems more like a misfeature. Chris' expectation was
reasonable and ought not to be violated without a good cause.
queryAdapter is used to look up named adapters.
Hermann Himmelbauer wrote at 2008-8-20 19:34 +0200:
Hi,
I have a page template, that should have the characters and in the
resulting HTML code, e.g.:
input type=hidden, name=xyz, value=ABC /
HTML forbids in attributes: it must be represented there as lt;.
Thus, Zope does the correct thing
1 - 100 of 1097 matches
Mail list logo
