On Dec 13, 2010, at 8:00 AM, Michael Howitz wrote:
Hi,
I have a test section in buildout (version 1.5.2) which uses the environment
option to get os.environ configs into the test script.
But the environment configuration does not show up in the generated script.
The recipe I use is
On Aug 23, 2010, at 12:36 PM, Andreas Jung wrote:
zc.recipe.egg 1.3.0 fails badly with
While:
Installing supervisor.
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
/Users/ajung/sandboxes/occ/eggs/zc.buildout-1.5.0-py2.6.egg/zc/buildout/buildout.py,
line 1784, in main
getattr(buildout,
On Aug 23, 2010, at 1:26 PM, Gary Poster wrote:
On Aug 23, 2010, at 12:36 PM, Andreas Jung wrote:
zc.recipe.egg 1.3.0 fails badly with
While:
Installing supervisor.
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
/Users/ajung/sandboxes/occ/eggs/zc.buildout-1.5.0-py2.6.egg/zc/buildout
On Aug 23, 2010, at 1:38 PM, Gary Poster wrote:
On Aug 23, 2010, at 1:26 PM, Gary Poster wrote:
On Aug 23, 2010, at 12:36 PM, Andreas Jung wrote:
zc.recipe.egg 1.3.0 fails badly with
While:
Installing supervisor.
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
/Users/ajung/sandboxes
On Aug 23, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Andreas Jung wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gary Poster wrote:
1.3.1 has change and is released.
On it's failing in a different way:
An internal error occurred due to a bug in either zc.buildout or in a
recipe being used
On Aug 23, 2010, at 3:25 PM, Gary Poster wrote:
On Aug 23, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Andreas Jung wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gary Poster wrote:
1.3.1 has change and is released.
On it's failing in a different way:
An internal error occurred due to a bug
On Jul 8, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
I propose the following adjustment:
try:
container = context.__parent__
except AttributeError:
container = ILocation(context).__parent__
+1
Gary
___
Zope-Dev maillist -
On Apr 16, 2010, at 1:35 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lennart Regebro wrote:
...
So, with that in mind I today went on to zc.buildout, trying to port
it to Python 3 by ripping out any usage of zope.testing. Also, the
standard development mode for
On Apr 15, 2010, at 12:51 PM, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Leonardo Rochael Almeida
leoroch...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Tres and Sidnei,
My questions were intended to go to the list anyway.
Can we take a branch from the launchpad mirror and bind it back
On Apr 15, 2010, at 1:27 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gary Poster wrote:
On Apr 15, 2010, at 12:51 PM, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Leonardo Rochael Almeida
leoroch...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Tres and Sidnei,
My
On Mar 31, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Christian Theune wrote:
Hi,
here's this week's summary.
For those of you who can't/don't participate in those meetings, there's
the open question about how useful you consider my summaries to be.
Please tell!
I read them and appreciate them. Thank you.
On Jan 26, 2010, at 7:49 AM, Marius Gedminas wrote:
I got tired of seeing things like
/home/mg/tmp/buildout-eggs/zope.testing-3.8.6-py2.5.egg/zope/testing/testrunner/debug.py:23:
DeprecationWarning: zope.testing.doctest is deprecated in favour of the
Python standard library doctest
On Jan 22, 2010, at 4:51 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 22:44, Hanno Schlichting ha...@hannosch.eu wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com wrote:
I also don't know of any applications running on the other frameworks,
which is why it's so
Yeah, I was thinking that too, as a I don't have time to think hard about
this little daydream.
Actually I believe you would want to subclass InterfaceClass and make your new
zope.component.Interface an instance of the new InterfaceClass and specify
zope.interface's Interface as something it
On Dec 3, 2009, at 1:54 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
My $.02 is here:
http://www.plope.com/Members/chrism/zca_thoughts_summary
I was going to comment on your blog, even though it was separate from the
mailing list, but then I couldn't register an account, so here I am.
I agree with a decent
On Dec 3, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
[snip]
I personally think these efforts do not make the potential consensus
on ``adapt`` and ``utility`` methods any less interesting: they would
be a concrete win for my users.
I agree with much of what Gary
On Dec 3, 2009, at 12:08 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
On Dec 3, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Gary Poster wrote: [snip]
I personally think these efforts do not make the potential
consensus on ``adapt`` and ``utility`` methods any less
interesting: they would
On Dec 3, 2009, at 3:33 PM, Thomas Lotze wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Thomas Lotze, are you happy enough with this to still help with the
implementation?
I am indeed. This isn't the ideal solution I had hoped for, but it is a
big step in a good direction from my point of view and I
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
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
...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
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 IFoo(context
On Dec 1, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
...
I am also in favor of unifying adapter and utility lookup. Or at least
creating a more normalized API.
I guess it is no surprise that I am in favor of a normalized API but against
the unification.
On the
On Dec 1, 2009, at 8:21 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
I'd like to summarize the options I've seen appear in the discussion so far.
We have the following options:
1) introduce a new method, such as instance() or lookup() on
instance. It unifies utilities with adapters. We can
On Nov 30, 2009, at 4:05 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 Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
Hmm, I may be missing something here, but if Foo implements IFoo, then
the getAdapter lookup for
On Nov 27, 2009, at 6:32 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
Introduction
So now that we've had some discussion and to exit the bikeshed phase,
Wow. That's abrupt, for something at the root of the entire stack.
I don't think long emails are very effective, but I'm not
On Nov 30, 2009, at 11:51 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gary Poster wrote:
On Nov 27, 2009, at 6:32 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Utility lookups versus adapter lookups
--
There was some
On Nov 30, 2009, at 1:51 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
Shane Hathaway wrote:
...a good general argument, that Chris seemed to agree with and expand upon,
and that has some merit to me.
What do you think?
+ 1 with the following caveat:
I think that method name should probably be adapt;
On Nov 30, 2009, at 11:47 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey,
Gary Poster wrote:
On Nov 27, 2009, at 6:32 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
...snipping here and elsewhere without further warning...
Utility lookup:
IFoo()
Named utility lookup:
IFoo(name=foo)
Utility lookup with a default
On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:49 PM, Charlie Clark wrote:
Am 30.11.2009, 20:24 Uhr, schrieb Gary Poster gary.pos...@gmail.com:
1) I very much like the idea of some helpers hanging around. However,
my current belief is that the factory methods ought to be callable
objects that allow
On Nov 30, 2009, at 4:13 PM, Zvezdan Petkovic wrote:
On Nov 30, 2009, at 4:05 PM, Zvezdan Petkovic wrote:
On Nov 30, 2009, at 2:24 PM, Gary Poster wrote:
3) I also think that utility is a bad name. Is singleton two letters
too long?
Yes and not because singleton is longer.
It just
On Nov 30, 2009, at 5:14 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 22:40, Gary Poster gary.pos...@gmail.com wrote:
Then to the multiadapter concern I raised, all my real-world examples of
adapters are to adapt one object so it can be used in a certain way (to
integrate
On Nov 25, 2009, at 10:41 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
...
Thoughts?
FWIW, this mirrors some of the thoughts I've had, after a lot of discussions
with Launchpad/Canonical engineers about the pros and cons of the Zope
interface and component code. My OSCON presentation touched on some of these
On Nov 25, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Thomas Lotze wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Adapter:
IFoo(x)
[...]
Multiadapter:
IFoo.multi(x, y)
[...]
Utility:
IFoo.utility()
[or possibly IFoo() instead?]
What about a simple and consistent API for all components including
On Nov 25, 2009, at 11:34 AM, Thomas Lotze wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
On Nov 25, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Thomas Lotze wrote:
What about a simple and consistent API for all components including
utilities, adapters and multiadapters:
IFoo()
IFoo(x)
IFoo(x, y)
I seem to remember
On Nov 25, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
FWIW, I'm saying that utilities and adapters are different. I share
your/Martijn's/other people's general thoughts about merging adapters and
multiadapters in the interface __call__ syntax.
There might should
On Nov 25, 2009, at 5:08 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
If some set of ZCA APIs made it the responsibility of the *caller* to
invoke the adapter with arguments would go a long way between normalizing
the difference between utilities and adapters (because they would
On Nov 3, 2009, at 4:48 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
...
It is an advocacy piece only in the sense that we are saying that,
by-and-large, we like what the packages give us, but it is more
challenging than that. It's an interesting pairing to Jeff Shell's
invited
I had a rethinking interfaces talk accepted. It's about the
positives and negatives of zope.interface and zope.component, driven
primarily from the perspective and experience of the Launchpad team,
and myself in particular; and about changes that might be made or
differences we are
On Nov 3, 2009, at 3:28 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
2009/11/3 Gary Poster gary.pos...@gmail.com:
I had a rethinking interfaces talk accepted. It's about the
positives and negatives of zope.interface and zope.component, driven
primarily from the perspective and experience of the Launchpad
On Sep 14, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Gary Poster wrote:
Once Bzr 2.0 comes out (in less than a month AIUI), I'll at least
send out a link to it and point out some changes made that
specifically address concerns raised by Zope Foundation members when
I raised Launchpad's/Canonical's offer before
, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 3:53 AM, Gary Poster gary.pos...@gmail.com
wrote:
The Ubuntu one should be easy to fix.
The Windows ones may be tied up with \n \r fun. It should be
trivial too,
though I'll need to get a Windows VM back up--or request aid from
Sidnei
On Sep 18, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This is from a note I sent yesterday to the ZTK steering group
(Martijn,
Christian, Jim, Stephan), proposing criteria for removing packages
from
the ZTK. Martijn has already updated the
On Sep 15, 2009, at 4:56 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
In my experience distributed SCMs add bottlenecks to development
that we
currently do not have in the Zope community: with both our shared svn
repository and distributed SCMs everyone can branch everything, but
with
distributed SCMs
On Sep 15, 2009, at 7:59 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
On 9/15/09 13:56 , Gary Poster wrote:
2) Our current arrangement, as well as many others, can be
accomplished
with a DVCS. Launchpad + Bzr definitely support this. You would
have a
Launchpad team of committers, with managed
On Sep 15, 2009, at 6:33 PM, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
Hi Hanno,
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Hanno Schlichting
ha...@hannosch.eu wrote:
We are down to zero-build problems for the ZTK and just one test
failure. This is in zope.testing in testrunner-layers-buff.txt.
That smells like
On Sep 3, 2009, at 10:53 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
FWIW, we forked zope.sendmail a while back (with the intent of
eventually merging these changes back upstream) as
repoze.sendmail. It does not use any thread to do queue
processing. Instead, a separate process can be run to handle
On Sep 11, 2009, at 9:53 AM, Benji York wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Marius Gedminas mar...@gedmin.as
wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:23:31PM -0400, Benji York wrote:
3) [no] superfluous version bumps on the trunk
I don't understand this one. Could you elaborate?
The
On Sep 11, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey,
Marius Gedminas wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 09:53:51AM -0400, Benji York wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Marius Gedminas
mar...@gedmin.as wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:23:31PM -0400, Benji York wrote:
3) [no]
Hi. pypi advertises http://pypi.python.org/pypi/zc.zservertracelog/1.2.0
but there is no download to be found! :-) Could whoever made the
release add the download?
Thanks
Gary
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
On Sep 11, 2009, at 4:57 PM, Alexander J Smith wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Alexander J Smith a...@zope.com
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Marius Gedminas mar...@gedmin.as
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 03:51:30PM -0400, Gary Poster wrote:
Hi. pypi advertises http
Hi all. One of the contributors to the Launchpad project has
identified a problem with zope.sendmail and thread changes in Python
= 2.5.1. Here is his description:
Description of the situation:
Prior to Python 2.5.1, the atexit handlers were executed when the
*main* thread exits.
Shameless plug: try z3c.recipe.filetemplate.
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/z3c.recipe.filetemplate
. Sounds like it does what you want out of the box.
Gary
On Aug 27, 2009, at 9:14 AM, Encolpe Degoute wrote:
Hello,
These last days I was using collective.recipe.template and
Hm. I sent this from the wrong account, so it didn't make it to the
zope-dev list. I'm also adding an additional bit of war story at the
end.
On Aug 24, 2009, at 11:16 AM, Gary Poster wrote:
Hi Tres
I made a 3.5.8 release of the zope.publisher 3.5 branch for a reason
unimportant
On Aug 24, 2009, at 5:27 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gary Poster wrote:
Hm. I sent this from the wrong account, so it didn't make it to the
zope-dev list. I'm also adding an additional bit of war story at the
end.
On Aug 24, 2009, at 11:16 AM
On Aug 24, 2009, at 6:02 PM, Roger Ineichen wrote:
Hi Tres
Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] zope.publisher 3.5 branch has
code/behavior not a part of subsequent releases
[...]
If I were not already behind, I would investigate to understand the
Python 2.6 problem better and see what other
On Aug 20, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Gary Postergary.pos...@gmail.com
wrote:
Two teams here at Canonical just encountered the STAGGER_RETRIES
behavior in
http://svn.zope.org/zope.publisher/trunk/src/zope/publisher/http.py?rev=101538view=auto
.
Two teams here at Canonical just encountered the STAGGER_RETRIES
behavior in
http://svn.zope.org/zope.publisher/trunk/src/zope/publisher/http.py?rev=101538view=auto
. I don't see anything in tests or comments to explain it. Our
guess is that it tries to put some breathing room around
On Jun 24, 2009, at 1:19 PM, Reinout van Rees wrote:
Hi all,
In messages like http://www.mail-archive.com/zope3-...@zope.org/msg05964.html
,
zc.async is mentioned as the solution for cron-like functionality in
zope.
Effectively you would not need zope2's clockserver.
Reading
On Jun 22, 2009, at 1:16 PM, Adam GROSZER wrote:
Hello,
Maybe it's time for an svn commit police squad?
22 .py files have tabs... and I grepped only zope.* packages.
FWIW, to state the probably obvious, other projects handle this with
varying degrees of increased control.
Some require
Hi Markus.
Stephan Richter and Paul Cardune are the people I would expect to
manage this package. I expect they'll get back to you soonish. On
freenode #zope3-dev they are srichter and pcardune, IIRC.
The feature and the diff look reasonable to me. Normally we want
tests in our diffs,
I'm concerned about the state of the zc.buildout template recipes. I
want one. I want some one-off files, specific to a certain project,
for which writing a standalone recipe feels very heavy.
Here are the template recipes I found:
collective.recipe.template (Wichert Akkerman)
On Apr 15, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
Here are a list of things I have seen that you may mean when you say
Zope 3. I'm sure I missed several:
1. Whatever is included in the Zope 3 tgz that you download.
2. All the packages included in the Zope 3 KGS. (Should be the same as
On Apr 6, 2009, at 9:28 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
Sadly, I suspect none of the tools are as advanced as TortoiseSVN.
Which
is a real shame :-( Perforce maybe? ;-)
Fair enough that bzr didn't take your fancy, but FWIW, did you try
TortoiseBzr? That has received love
On Apr 2, 2009, at 7:35 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gary Poster wrote:
I'd like to report back on the progress that Bzr/Launchpad has made
addressing concerns we heard since I last brought up Canonical's
offer
to host the code and contribute
On Apr 3, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Chris Rossi wrote:
Hello,
Hi Chris.
I was wondering if the Zope collective had given any consideration
to allowing constants to be defined in interfaces. To be clear,
these are constant values that make up the protocol defined by the
interface.
...
On Apr 3, 2009, at 7:21 PM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
This looks like a poor man's enum. I'ld prefer to have a proper enum
like thing.
Seems a little different to me.
For what it is worth, though, if you do want an enum in zope.schema,
Canonical has lazr.enum:
On Apr 2, 2009, at 1:31 PM, Chris Withers wrote:
Hey All,
...
The other option would be to follow Python and move to Mercurial, but
that has the same problems for me as with Bzr (no decent gui tools,
less
mature, etc) although it's a toolset I'll have to learn at some point
anyway...
On Mar 25, 2009, at 11:52 AM, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
Hi Martijn,
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Martijn Faassen
faas...@startifact.com wrote:
One question is what launchpad project we should use.
The current launchpad is for Zope 3. The steering group isn't about
Zope 3. It's about a
On Mar 24, 2009, at 6:12 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
Hey All,
Who's around at PyCon? If so, when/where are we meeting up?
Arriving Thursday evening, leaving following Thursday afternoon. I'm
starting at the Hyatt, going to the Crowne Plaza on Monday.
Email is maybe the best public way to get
On Mar 25, 2009, at 2:21 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
Hi Martijn,
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Martijn Faassen
faas...@startifact.com wrote:
One question is what launchpad project we should use.
The current launchpad is for Zope 3. The steering group isn't
On Mar 16, 2009, at 10:55 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
Yes, +1. Thank you. I was about to write to your other message that
this was quite possibly the only 3.8 dependency.
Cool. Committed.
If we do that, then we can let plone.relations depend on
zc.relationship
1.1.1
On Mar 16, 2009, at 4:02 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Hi,
I *think* this is a bug in zc.relationship, but I'm not quite sure.
I'm using ZODB3 3.8.1 (to get BLOB support) and trying to install
plone.app.relations, which depends on zc.relationship 1.0.2. In
particular, it subclasses
On Mar 16, 2009, at 8:39 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
On Mar 16, 2009, at 4:02 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Hi,
I *think* this is a bug in zc.relationship, but I'm not quite sure.
I'm using ZODB3 3.8.1 (to get BLOB support) and trying to install
plone.app.relations, which
On Mar 16, 2009, at 9:19 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Hi Gary,
zc.relationship 2.0 trunk is now essentially a wrapping of
zc.relation
code for backwards compatibility.
I see. But 2.0dev on pypi isn't?
What's the story behind zc.relation and the evolution of
zc.relationship?
Briefly, I
On Mar 16, 2009, at 10:21 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Hi Gary,
Thanks for being so helpful!
Happy to.
What's the difference between 1.1.1 and 2.0dev on pypi?
I intended that 1.1.1 would simply make the absolutely minimal
changes
necessary for you to be able to use the 1.1 branch. It
On Mar 16, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Dan Korostelev wrote:
2009/3/16 Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com:
There is a compromise I am willing to take. If package zope.bar
depends on a
*new feature* or *feature change* in zope.foo 1.3.x, then it
should specify
the version. In other words
On Mar 16, 2009, at 1:20 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
Hopefully. Do we know that zc.relationship 1.1 works with both ZODB
versions?
That would be a significant point of its existence, so I certainly
hope so. I'm 80%+ confident that it does, and would
On Mar 9, 2009, at 5:20 PM, Dan Korostelev wrote:
Hi zope developers!
As you may know, python 3 introduced the concept of annotations for
callable objects. That annotations store information about arguments
and return values, which is kinda nice language feature that will
allow us to do
On Mar 6, 2009, at 9:50 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
Thanks Gary for sketching our the zc.async usecase. Note that zc.async
isn't in the Zope Framework at this point in time so it wouldn't be
directly affected by this policy, but it's still a useful usecase of
course.
Right,
On Mar 6, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Dan Korostelev wrote:
2009/3/6 Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey,
Laurence Rowe wrote:
[snip]
It seems there is a 'tests_require'
One reason that isn't used is that apparently there
On Mar 1, 2009, at 1:00 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
There's been some discussion recently about separating the interfaces
in zope.publisher from the implementations to facilitate other
implementations.
I think it would be great to standardize request and response APIs.
I'd love to see this
On Mar 5, 2009, at 6:38 AM, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
And I am personally interested if the Zope 3 app server is something
that's
dying in favour for other projects (Plone/Grok) or is actively used.
Not clear on what you mean by the app server.
If you mean zope.publisher, no, I don't
On Mar 5, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
I know opinions are divergent about 'extra' dependencies in setup.py.
These ar dependencies that effectively make a single project with a
single dependency structure into a number of virtual packages that
each can have a separate
On Mar 4, 2009, at 2:20 AM, Thomas Lotze wrote:
Gary Poster gary.pos...@gmail.com schrieb:
Index: src/zc/dict/configure.zcml
===
--- src/zc/dict/configure.zcml (.../trunk) (revision 0)
+++ src/zc/dict/configure.zcml
On Mar 3, 2009, at 7:35 AM, Martijn Pieters wrote:
...
And so far I haven't heard any better ideas than
what Martijn is proposing (no, leaving the status quo, deny there is a
problem and steer by majority is not a counter proposal in my view).
It may be that the idea needs some tweaking,
in my
proposed panarchy), if from a slightly different perspective.
Gary Poster wrote:
Moreover, if you are willing to step up and declare that you are
starting something called the Zope Framework that manages a known
good set of code, and you hope other projects and people join
On Mar 3, 2009, at 10:57 AM, Stephan Richter wrote:
On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Gary Poster wrote:
My mild counter proposal was this.
- The ZF formally institutes an easy way for people to start Zope
projects
- Hopefully, Martijn F. starts something like the project he
described
Thank you for the huge effort you expended on this, Martijn.
You are right, with Jim taking a rest from his much-appreciated past
years as leader, no one is in a position to guide the Zope name. We
do have community leaders, such as yourself, but they are guiding
other names at the moment.
[Thomas asked me to review his zc.dict branch a while ago.]
Hi Thomas. Thank you for this work. It looks great. I do have
several comments below (from an abbreviated diff against the current
trunk).
Index: buildout.cfg
On Feb 19, 2009, at 2:07 AM, Marius Gedminas wrote:
I have the impression that you're talking past each other.
There are two ways of using OpenID:
* you can be an OpenID provider, i.e. accept logins with username
password and respond to authentication requests from other websites
On Feb 17, 2009, at 7:55 PM, Shane Hathaway wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
Launchpad uses OpenID. We don't have that slated for abstraction
and open-sourcing immediately. However, most of the Launchpad code
(including this bit) is to be open-sourced by this summer,
abstracted
zope.testing trunk has five tests failing in Python 2.4.6 and four
failing in Python 2.5.4 (on self-compiled versions on Mac OS X).
Anyone know what the story is here?
Gary
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
On Feb 16, 2009, at 3:11 PM, Marius Gedminas wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 10:17:06AM -0500, Gary Poster wrote:
zope.testing trunk has five tests failing in Python 2.4.6 and four
failing in Python 2.5.4 (on self-compiled versions on Mac OS X).
Anyone know what the story is here?
No clue
On Feb 9, 2009, at 12:03 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
Lots of things have happened in the Zope universe the last couple of
years, and are still happening, some of which are turning Zope inside
out, from a monolithic ghetto to a componentized agile speed monster.
People outside the Zope world
As the author, +1 and thank you!
Gary
On Feb 8, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Dan Korostelev wrote:
Okay. I prepared the zope.copy package in the SVN for you to check
out what I mean. :)
2009/2/8 Dan Korostelev nad...@gmail.com:
After looking at the whole copy thing for some more time, I thought
On Feb 8, 2009, at 5:18 PM, Dan Korostelev wrote:
2009/2/9 Gary Poster gary.pos...@gmail.com:
As the author, +1 and thank you!
Glad to hear. I'll release the result of the merge soon.
BTW, I'd also like to make a final release of zc.copy, replacing its
code with dependencies/imports from
Hi all. There's some disagreement about how to resolve the bug below,
even though there's agreement that we want it resolved. Your input
would be appreciated so we can find a consensus and move forward with
a solution.
https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/zope3/+bug/322486
Gary
Hi all.
As announced elsewhere (and described in
https://dev.launchpad.net/OpenSourcing)
, Canonical's Launchpad project is working towards open-sourcing the
majority of the code base by this summer.
Prior and subsequent to the grand open-sourcing date, the Launchpad
developers are
1 - 100 of 168 matches
Mail list logo
