Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Martin Aspeli wrote:
I'm not sure this is all that useful. For Plone 4, we're just going to
have a number of plone.*, plone.app.* and Products.* (and a few others,
like kss.*) eggs that we can put in a KGS or version pin in a single
"Plone&qu
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
during the latest 'zope.publisher' thread on zope-dev I came up with
the proposal to eggify the Zope core for the Zope 2.12 release. I would
like to start a discussion about the pros and cons, risks and advantages
of any eggification effort.
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Mar 23, 2008, at 2:27 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Mar 21, 2008, at 6:54 PM, David Pratt wrote:
Hi Jim. OK great. Many thanks for elaborating. This will be
progressive. I had been considering an application use case
without a zodb. Is this the
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Mar 21, 2008, at 6:54 PM, David Pratt wrote:
Hi Jim. OK great. Many thanks for elaborating. This will be
progressive. I had been considering an application use case without
a zodb. Is this the scenario that the basic publisher would
facilitate?
No-more so than the e
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 21. März 2008 19:20:46 + Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One thing that sucks right now for the repoze.zope2 story is that Zope 2
isn't "officially" packaged in an egg-friendly form so the Repoze guys
have to repackage it. It'd
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Mar 21, 2008, at 12:55 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Mar 21, 2008, at 12:15 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thoughts? Objections?
I've caught the repoze bug, and if this makes a Repoze.zope3 easier
to
do/hap
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey,
On Feb 1, 2008 11:52 PM, Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Friday 01 February 2008, Martijn Faassen wrote:
http://www.openplans.org/projects/zorg-redux
This project does not seem to be public.
Right - thanks Martijn for sp
Christophe Combelles wrote:
Stephan Richter a écrit :
Not responding to anyone in particular:
I see there are plenty people with opinions. I would love not to do the Zope 3
releases anymore! I am tired of the endless discussions.
Think I am frustrated? Absolutely!
All the suggestions made h
Tres Seaver wrote:
That said, I suppose this should be either a conditional import or moved
to a higher level altogether.
- -1 to the conditional import; + 1 to moving the code.
Agree.
It seems to me it's also in the best interest of the Plone developers to
have this cleaned up, right?
Ye
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
So, what's the plan to clean up this mess? Can the Plone specific
stuff be cleared up from the branches into a Plone-specific package
and a new release be made that works for both Plone and the rest of
the Zope
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
So, I am trying to look at five.customerize in the context of Silva. I
look at the SVN, and see the trunk is significantly older than various
Plone-related branches. Hm, odd.
I thought, let's download the 0.2 sources from the cheeseshop. I
download them. Fin
Jim Fulton wrote:
I understand the historical reasons behind these dependencies, but I
genuinely think we should pick a few libraries that are "useful" to
the outside world (zope.interface, zope.component,
zope.configuration, zope.annotation, zope.event come to mind) and
work to make thes
Rob Miller wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Nov 16, 2007 11:41 AM, Lennart Regebro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 16, 2007 3:38 AM, Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Help appreciated!
Well, I suggest you forget about ZCML and try to use the CA directly
from Python
On Nov 16, 2007 2:07 PM, Stephan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 15 November 2007, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> > Then I tried to easy_install zope.security, but this pulled in most of
> > Zope, including the ZODB, ZConfig and zdaemon. That's a real shame - no
Hi Chris,
Then I tried to easy_install zope.security, but this pulled in most
of Zope, including the ZODB, ZConfig and zdaemon. That's a real
shame - no CA (at least not with ZCML) without having pretty much
all of Zope there. :(
Yup. Inappropriate dependency chain when you use the cheese
Hi all,
For fun, I just tried to make use of adapters and utilities, registered
with ZCML, in a Pylons application.
I installed Pylons in a virtualenv, and easy_installed zope.component
and zope.interface using the KGS index for 3.4. I used
zope.configuration (also installed) to load a site.
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Friday 09 November 2007, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Nov 9, 2007 4:06 PM, Roger Ineichen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Create our own locked down index?
I think so because,
Surely there must be a way to say "I want to use THAT KGS over there.
Except for this module, that
Alexander Limi wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:29:36 -0700, Andreas Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The recommendation is still "System python is evil, evil, evil" (quoting
Jim).
Sure, but if you ever want to be able to tell users to do:
easy_install plone
to get their Plone site, it's a nece
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
[snip]
So I turned things around: if I state in my egg information that I
require another package that means I need to have that package
available and functional
Tres Seaver wrote:
I may not *want* the other package's ZCML to be loaded: some of its
policies may not be appropriate for my application. I think that the
"library" vs. "pluggable application" distinction is valid here: maybe
you want to define an entry point in the egg which a given pluggab
Fred Drake wrote:
On 10/17/07, Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The main win, IMHO, is to avoid the requirement for people to install
slugs for third party products. Slugs suck - they are confusing to
explain and people forget them all the time. Buildout makes it a bit
easier, bu
Fred Drake wrote:
On 10/17/07, Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A common issue we are seeing is that we have eggs depending on each
other, but they still need to load the zcml from those dependencies
somehow. As a temporary solution to play with the concept I added
something simple to
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 04 October 2007 09:57, Jim Fulton wrote:
This would basically involve retiring the zope3-dev list and moving
zope3 developers to the zope-dev list.
-1. I do not follow zope-dev at all and the traffic is pretty high there.
But pretty low there, if you take
Hi Greg,
I think Zope is in serious trouble and the Zope.org web site is badly
in need of attention. I started using zope in 2001 at Xerox PARC and
the helpful and persuasive resources at zope.org were a major
factor. Today, zope.org is full of dead links and it very hard to
use unless
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
My intent is:
"Given any recipe, no matter where data is coming from (be it an egg
in PyPI, a Subversion checkout or a tarball), I would like to be able
to perform an operation in the 'local copy' of the data, without
depending on the person that wrote the recipe to have
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote at 2007-9-22 12:21 +0100:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
We extend the Zope2 configuration with an option "additional-products"
which lists the products used by the instance that are not
at a standard place -- such as those installed by "setup
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 22. September 2007 12:40:04 +0100 Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
I think there are currently several approaches doing products-as-eggs in
the Zope 2 world - I also lost track a bit and have no idea how to do it
the right way[tm
Andreas Jung wrote:
I think there are currently several approaches doing products-as-eggs in
the Zope 2 world - I also lost track a bit and have no idea how to do it
the right way[tm].
To my knowledge, there are only two, complementary approaches:
1. Keep the Products.* namespace
- dist
Dieter Maurer wrote:
During our latest discussion to put my most important Zope2 products
into a public repository, I have promissed to publish them on
PyPI instead. Yesterday, I started work to fulfill this promiss
and carefully read the PyPI related documentation -- to find
out, that it is not
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
Hi there,
Not sure this is the right list, but let's give it a try.
I would like to use the 'patches' functionality from zc.recipe.cmmi
together with other recipes. I believe this is useful functionality
and is interesting to all sorts of recipes, not only to cmmi-based
o
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Laurence Rowe wrote:
Quite a lot of zope3 code (zc.datetimewidget for instance) expects to be
able to access request.locale. ZPublisher does not provide this and to
get around the limitation you must manually set request.locale in your
view using Products.CMFDefault.form
Andreas Zeidler wrote:
hi,
imho i've found a vulnerability in zope 2.10.4 or rather in the newer
version of five (1.5.5) used by it. in `Five/browser/
pagetemplatefile.py` in line 27 `createTrustedZopeEngine` is used the
instantiate the page template engine used by five templates, or at
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Hi,
as some of you may have noticed I worked a bit more on philikon's branch
which makes Acquisition and in return the Zope2 security machinery aware
of __parent__ pointers.
The branch can be found here:
svn+ssh://svn.zope.org/repos/main/Zope/branches/philikon-aq-and-__
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
At the moment my options seem to be to not use buildout or modifying
setup.py in zope.sendmail to remove all its declared dependencies.
More like "not to use setuptools", i.e. any egg-based solution would
have the same problem (e.g. workingenv).
You can probably chec
From people's comments, here and on the archetypes mailing list, I am
pretty convinced that there is support for a through the web editing
environment, even from Alexander Limi, expert on human interfaces and
co-author of Plone.
You have an incredibly annoying tendency to take the words of s
Tres Seaver wrote:
>
> AT has the classic "Z-shaped curve" in spades: when it does what you
> want, it is great, but trying to get it to do something else is painful
> and frustrating.
>
> I don't agree all that often with Chris W, but I find Archetypes an
> extremely frustrating framework to
Andreas Jung-5 wrote:
>
>> Okay. Let me rephrase. Most people don't find it painful, and a huge
>> number of developers are being very productive with Archetypes. I know
>> you hate it Chris, but you are in the minority.
>>
>
> I have to second that. The latest versions of AT are pretty much s
Chris Withers wrote:
>
> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> Plone development with Archetypes is not painful. Hundreds of developers
>> do it, so it can't be that bad.
>
> Urm, that's not true. Archetypes is the single most painful component to
> use from Plone...
Christopher Lozinski wrote:
For those who have not been following this thread, here is the
proposal. http://wiki.zope.org/zope2/ZClassesNG
Can you please not start a new thread for every turn of this
conversation? 8 of the last 9 threads are by you on this exact issue.
Last night I realized
Christopher Lozinski wrote:
I think I have figured out how to do it. This looks like a ZMI based
ZClass, you can define it through the ZMI, you can add instance
variables, you can add instance methods, all through the ZMI, but you
can change inheritance, because it is really a product create
Christopher Lozinski wrote:
1. There is no demand for a through the web development environment that
works.
I just don't believe that.
There is demand for TTW *customisation*, as we have in CMF/Plone with
the portal_skins mechanism, for example. Developing entire systems
through a web brows
Christopher Lozinski wrote:
I thought, hey, I bet a million people need such a simple web app. Let
us make it really easy to implement craigslist or better. Let me go
ahead and create a ZClass product, and go ahead and distribute it. Lots
of people would use it. Or at least enough to buil
Christian Theune-2 wrote:
>
> Am Mittwoch, den 07.03.2007, 14:01 -0300 schrieb Sidnei da Silva:
>> What exactly do you mean by 'link'? As in 'soft links'? The uploaded
>> file usually is a temporary file, so you are saying you would create a
>> soft link on the 'blobs' directory to a file in th
Chris Withers wrote:
>
> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'll bet one is backed by a hashtable and the other is backed by an r/b
>> tree, meaning the Set is O(1) lookups, possibly a bit less space
>> efficient
>> and non-ordered,
>
> Well
Chris Withers wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Wondering if someone could tell me the difference between an OOSet and
> an OOTreeSet?
>
> They seem to have different interfaces and yet seem to be used in
> similar circumstances in PluginIndexes/common/UnIndex.py...
>
> I'm looking for a set-like dat
Ian Bicking wrote:
One of the things that I think is pretty easy with workingenv, and a bit
confusing with buildout, is moving one package into development. In
workingenv you get the package you want (however you do that -- check
out a branch, make your own local repository, unpack a tarball,
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Whit ("mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]") reported that "AdvancedQuery"
is going to ship with Plone3 and that packaging would be easier for them if
"AdvancedQuery" were part of the Zope 2 distribution.
I fail to find an explanation *why* that is.
yuppie wrote:
- Should we add new products to the core? I thought we want to move away
from products and use python packages instead. The AdvancedQuery code
might become part of the ZCatalog package, ManagableIndex might be
converted to a non-products package.
There are hardly "new", though,
Dieter Maurer wrote:
I have no problems to donate "AdvancedQuery" and/or "Managable Index"
to the Zope Foundation
That's great, thank you! :)
*BUT* I will not modify the code to bring
it in line with the different style requirements usually applied
to Zope components: e.g.
* my code uses
Daniel Nouri-3 wrote:
>
>
> BTW, compare the difference in size between that script[1] and
> ploneout[2]. I should mention that it does less than ploneout (it
> doesn't download Zope 2, but that'd be trivial to add) and it could be
> argued that it's less flexible for some definition of flexi
Jim Fulton wrote:
[foo]
recipe=zc.recipe.egg
eggs = egg1 egg2 ...
interpreter = mypy
extra-paths = path-to-your-instance/lib/python
scripts = mypy
This is great :) I used eggs = ${instance:eggs} to make sure it has the
same eggs as our Zope instance, seems to wo
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
The first step to compatibility is deciding what it means. :)
I'm all in favor of workingenv/buildout compatibility.
I'd like to see some specifics of how people would like
to use workingenv amd buildout together. I have so
Jim Fulton wrote:
The first step to compatibility is deciding what it means. :)
I'm all in favor of workingenv/buildout compatibility.
I'd like to see some specifics of how people would like
to use workingenv amd buildout together. I have some guesses,
but I'd rather hear people say what they w
I don't have a usecase for executing the scripts with any python
interpeter other than the one which ran setuptools to generate them, and
therefore don't care for the hard-wired path manipulation
I would agree that having to mangle multiple scripts is annoying. On the
other hand, I find the
Tres Seaver wrote:
I don't think buildout's default locations would be called "sensible" by
anybody except the folks who wrote it.
I think a lot of this may have to do with sensible defaults; most (all?)
of this is settable via options in buildout.cfg, which is reassuring at
least.
Here
Ian Bicking wrote:
After setting that project aside someone else at TOPP (Luke Tucker)
did a buildout for Deliverance because we needed to build some
non-Python libraries and that was a feature of buildout; that did end up
working eventually (after considerable effort), but it was not a very
Rob Miller wrote:
honestly, it seems to me that buildout tries to do too much. it's trying to
handle both repeatable deployment recipes AND providing a sandbox within which
to run things. there may not be a point to having an extra layer on top of
buildout, but buildout sure does seem to me
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
The point is that buildout *already* handles eggs. There's really no
point for having an extra layer on top of buildout. The zc.recipe.egg
recipe can install any egg (as a development one or not) in an automated
fashion, which is exactly what you'd want from a
whit wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
This is awesome, and by that I don't mean the fact that we have a
plone buildout, but that we actually have Zope 2 recipes for buildout.
I hope they can be moved to svn.zope.org for further development to
benefit the
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
>
> This proposal aims at bringing Zope 2 a bit closer to Zope 3 by making
> the widely used Acquisition API aware of Zope 3's __parent__ pointers.
> This will alleviate the need of using Acquisition base classes in Zope 2
> for every security-sensitive objec
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
>
> For their upcoming versions, Zope 2 consuming platforms such as Plone
> are creating standard Zope3-style Python packages while still having
> Zope 2 products around. This proposal aims at unifying the deployment
> of products and Python packages into a Zop
Right. What I'm saying is that this should be the default. Sensible
defaults is sometimes all it takes to get something adopted. Just
look at that Plone thang ;).
Yeah. I'd be happy to move the Data.fs directory to var/${part_name}
under the main buildout directory.
I'd also be happy to ma
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
This is awesome, and by that I don't mean the fact that we have a plone
buildout, but that we actually have Zope 2 recipes for buildout. I hope
they can be moved to svn.zope.org for further development to benefit the
whole Zope 2 community.
I believe this is
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey,
I only caught this message earlier today, but this is really cool! It's
really nice to see some zope 2 recipes and I hope they indeed will end
up on svn.zope.org soon!
Your workingenv recipe sounds very interesting and I should try this
soon. Does it allow easy_i
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey,
I only caught this message earlier today, but this is really cool! It's
really nice to see some zope 2 recipes and I hope they indeed will end
up on svn.zope.org soon!
Your workingenv recipe sounds very interesting and I should try this
soon. Does it allow easy_i
Sidnei da Silva-2 wrote:
>
> Since I'm going to be building the installer for Windows I would like
> to quickly ask if anyone expects multiple Zope installs to live
> side-by-side. The existing installer atempted that but I don't believe
> it was very successful.
>
> I would like to know if an
Max M wrote:
>
> Refresh no longer works, and the old "debug, correct, restart" cycle is
> back.
>
> Only this time a software stack the size a skyscrapers has to be loaded.
> Making it even slower than in the old Zope days.
>
There are a few answers to this question
- Get a better machine
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 15:42:34 +0100, whit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
to echo Martijn, I've learned much more about zope3 thumbing through the
z3 bundled with Zope 2 than I have looking at actual zope3 source,
because I don't have a job that pays me to do pure zope3.
I would argue sending the
Lennart Regebro-2 wrote:
>
> Well, CMFonFive uses zope.app.publisher.browser, because that's where
> the menus hang.
>
We would like to start using browser menus in Plone
> CPS uses zope.app.container for the container events and the IAdding
> interface all over the place.
>
We may want t
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 16:18:27 -, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Zope is a agile flexible extensible app server with rich services.
You forgot "Enterprise".
Martin
--
(muted)
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 19:31:38 -, Stefane Fermigier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Strange how (most of) the Plone people seem to be so quick in willing to
sacrifice the Zope brand :(
I don't think that's true. I'm certainly not, and I've not heard anyone
directly in favour of that either. Wha
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:33:05 -, Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I don't see how *saying* what Zope 5 will contain will make it *exist*
any time sooner. These sound like useful evolution proposals for Zope 2
and Zope 3 to me...
The current story of Zope 2, Five and Zope 3 ge
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 21:28:09 -, Stephan Richter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have spent the last two weeks working on a proposal that defines a Zope
Software Certification Program (ZSCP) and a Common Repository that
implements
this process. The proposal is attached to this mail. I welcom
What my point is here is that your attitude about Zope 2 is wrong: as a
pure-play Zope 3 developer you *should* care about Zope 2.
Some of us have been doing quite a bit of work of bringing Zope 3 to the
Zope 2 world. I believe that at least partially as a result of this,
Zope 3 is getting
401 - 474 of 474 matches
Mail list logo
