Re: [Zope-dev] A Modest Proposal Concerning Monkey Patches
Again, monkey patching doesn't modify source code, so I don't know what would be getting written into tmp. Comments? Didn't someone else make a proposal (with code) to handle this? Was it PatchKit? Yup, and it is more than a proposal, it is a full blown product ( http://www.zope.org/Members/haqa/PatchKit ) with some patches already in it (They can be removed if you wish). There is a fledgling API, though I probably need to document it better, make some unit tests etc, but it is there, and it works (For me... YMMV). But yes, some standard would be helpful, possibly with supporting utilities, to allow multiple monkeypatches coexist, I think. On the other hand, in Zope3 you just change the zcml files...although I think there was a discusion of an analogous issue there (coexistence of multiple modifications to the same area) and I'm not sure a conclusion was reached (but I can't remember for sure). Adrian... -- Adrian Hungate EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.haqa.co.uk ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] A Modest Proposal Concerning Monkey Patches
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 08:46:41AM +0100, Adrian Hungate wrote: Again, monkey patching doesn't modify source code, so I don't know what would be getting written into tmp. Comments? Didn't someone else make a proposal (with code) to handle this? Was it PatchKit? Yup, and it is more than a proposal, it is a full blown product ( http://www.zope.org/Members/haqa/PatchKit ) with some patches already in it (They can be removed if you wish). Nope... we have been down this path before. Note this what I need (see below on why) requires modification, and not simple replacement, of whatever code is currently running. As far as I can see, Patchkit does nothing to make this possible. The problem is that A) monkey patches may or may not have been applied before a given product sees anything, and B) there is no reasonable way to discover what (or even if) patches have been applied by other products. If you are going to go down the monkeypatch path, then there needs to be some way for other monkeypatchers to discover what you have done, so that they can decide if they can 1) extend your code to be compatible with theirs, 2) refuse to install their code, or 3) blow your pre-existing code away. Current monkeypatch code always does 3. Patchkit has, as far as I can tell no way to make 1 or 2 easier. It just makes it easier to blow other people's work away! Background: I am debian maintainer for zope-zshell. The debian release is currently a version behind. I have been holding off updating it because I would like the ZMI box. I cannot modify manage_main.py directly, because it belongs to the zope package and the changes would be blown away on any upgrade of zope. I was starting to turn it into a python product, but zope-externaleditor has been packaged, and it monkeypatches manage_main. The naive thing to do would be to install it as a monkeypatch. But then, either I blow away externaleditor, or externaleditor blows away zshell, depending on the order in which zope installs products on startup. There are several other products that monkeypatch manage_main as well, building a nice mutual destruction club. Jim Penny PS: I would also like to hear general responses to Jerome's proposal. Clearly this was not an API, no arguments have been specified. But is there a general consensus that this is a reasonable thing to do? Please, if it isn't to late, could we make it a 2.6 thing? There is a fledgling API, though I probably need to document it better, make some unit tests etc, but it is there, and it works (For me... YMMV). But yes, some standard would be helpful, possibly with supporting utilities, to allow multiple monkeypatches coexist, I think. On the other hand, in Zope3 you just change the zcml files...although I think there was a discusion of an analogous issue there (coexistence of multiple modifications to the same area) and I'm not sure a conclusion was reached (but I can't remember for sure). Adrian... -- Adrian Hungate EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.haqa.co.uk ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] A Modest Proposal Concerning Monkey Patches
Hmm... ok, now I see what you are talking about, however, you are talking about modifying a DTMLFile object - I am not sure of any reliable API (Or even magic) that will allow that to happen in a play nice with others way. Just for clarity's sake (For me if no-one else), what object type are you wanting to change manage_main for? I have to admit to not knowing zshell or external_editor well, but I have seen mentions of ee making changes to the ZMI - I had assumed this was the addition of tabs (And DTMLFiles), not the replacement of them. I take it I was wrong in this assumption? Adrian... -- Adrian Hungate EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.haqa.co.uk - Original Message - From: Jim Penny [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Adrian Hungate [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 3:34 PM Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] A Modest Proposal Concerning Monkey Patches On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 08:46:41AM +0100, Adrian Hungate wrote: Again, monkey patching doesn't modify source code, so I don't know what would be getting written into tmp. Comments? Didn't someone else make a proposal (with code) to handle this? Was it PatchKit? Yup, and it is more than a proposal, it is a full blown product ( http://www.zope.org/Members/haqa/PatchKit ) with some patches already in it (They can be removed if you wish). Nope... we have been down this path before. Note this what I need (see below on why) requires modification, and not simple replacement, of whatever code is currently running. As far as I can see, Patchkit does nothing to make this possible. The problem is that A) monkey patches may or may not have been applied before a given product sees anything, and B) there is no reasonable way to discover what (or even if) patches have been applied by other products. If you are going to go down the monkeypatch path, then there needs to be some way for other monkeypatchers to discover what you have done, so that they can decide if they can 1) extend your code to be compatible with theirs, 2) refuse to install their code, or 3) blow your pre-existing code away. Current monkeypatch code always does 3. Patchkit has, as far as I can tell no way to make 1 or 2 easier. It just makes it easier to blow other people's work away! Background: I am debian maintainer for zope-zshell. The debian release is currently a version behind. I have been holding off updating it because I would like the ZMI box. I cannot modify manage_main.py directly, because it belongs to the zope package and the changes would be blown away on any upgrade of zope. I was starting to turn it into a python product, but zope-externaleditor has been packaged, and it monkeypatches manage_main. The naive thing to do would be to install it as a monkeypatch. But then, either I blow away externaleditor, or externaleditor blows away zshell, depending on the order in which zope installs products on startup. There are several other products that monkeypatch manage_main as well, building a nice mutual destruction club. Jim Penny PS: I would also like to hear general responses to Jerome's proposal. Clearly this was not an API, no arguments have been specified. But is there a general consensus that this is a reasonable thing to do? Please, if it isn't to late, could we make it a 2.6 thing? There is a fledgling API, though I probably need to document it better, make some unit tests etc, but it is there, and it works (For me... YMMV). But yes, some standard would be helpful, possibly with supporting utilities, to allow multiple monkeypatches coexist, I think. On the other hand, in Zope3 you just change the zcml files...although I think there was a discusion of an analogous issue there (coexistence of multiple modifications to the same area) and I'm not sure a conclusion was reached (but I can't remember for sure). Adrian... -- Adrian Hungate EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.haqa.co.uk ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] A Modest Proposal Concerning Monkey Patches
Hmm... that is not good. I can't see you getting an API to change a DTML file. The only option would be to create the ObjectManager's contents page from python, and people seem not to like doing that, but it would allow a little more engineering to take place. Hmmm... It looks as though what is needed is fish-bowl proposal to redesign the way ObjectManager handles and displays rows for specific object types - the requirement being that this be third-party-pluggable (For want of a better term). (No that was not me volunteering - too much on at the moment, sorry). One question about zshell though, what is the box that is added left of the add product pulldown? Is it something that ABSOLUTELY has to be on the contents listing (i.e. something to do with creating or maintaining the objects listed?). Could it be backdoor'd into all_meta_types so that it, itself is listed in the pulldown, or could it have a ZMI tab of it's own (Both of these are easier than live patching the DTML)? Adrian... -- Adrian Hungate EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.haqa.co.uk - Original Message - From: Jim Penny [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Adrian Hungate [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 4:26 PM Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] A Modest Proposal Concerning Monkey Patches On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 03:48:51PM +0100, Adrian Hungate wrote: Hmm... ok, now I see what you are talking about, however, you are talking about modifying a DTMLFile object - I am not sure of any reliable API (Or even magic) that will allow that to happen in a play nice with others way. Just for clarity's sake (For me if no-one else), what object type are you wanting to change manage_main for? I have to admit to not knowing zshell or external_editor well, but I have seen mentions of ee making changes to the ZMI - I had assumed this was the addition of tabs (And DTMLFiles), not the replacement of them. I take it I was wrong in this assumption? yeah, externaleditor inserts icons into many rows of the name column. zshell want an extra text box to the left of the add product pulldown. There are other products that do similar things. I think the Photo product modifies things in a similar manner to externaleditor. These are, I suspect, not even at the object stage. You have to modify rows in a table. Jim ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] A Modest Proposal Concerning Monkey Patches
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Jim Penny wrote: [Snip] It looks as though what is needed is fish-bowl proposal to redesign the way ObjectManager handles and displays rows for specific object types - the requirement being that this be third-party-pluggable (For want of a better term). (No that was not me volunteering - too much on at the moment, sorry). One question about zshell though, what is the box that is added left of the add product pulldown? Is it something that ABSOLUTELY has to be on the contents listing (i.e. something to do with creating or maintaining the objects listed?). Could it be backdoor'd into all_meta_types so that it, itself is listed in the pulldown, or could it have a ZMI tab of it's own (Both of these are easier than live patching the DTML)? Adrian... It needs a place to type a command, that is, it is a free form text box. That is, zshell gives zope a CLI. Historically, you have had to click on something to get to the CLI. If it is made part of the ZMI, then the CLI is part of every management window, with no extra work needed to use it. What is needed is to insert a form with a single textbox as element. This seems to be a hard problem. Introducing monkeypatches, has, in my opinion made it harder, before people would have simply given up. Hmm, the more you describe this, the less the ObjectManager's contents view seems quite the right place for it. If the relationship to the current ObjectManager is required, then what is the problem with a ZMI tab (Titled zShell or Command Line or whatever). This could easily be implimented, would survive upgrades, and (To me at least) would be a more logical interface. Jim -- Adrian Hungate EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.haqa.co.uk -- Adrian Hungate EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.haqa.co.uk ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] A Modest Proposal Concerning Monkey Patches
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 05:08:21PM +0100, Adrian Hungate wrote: One question about zshell though, what is the box that is added left of the add product pulldown? Is it something that ABSOLUTELY has to be on the contents listing (i.e. something to do with creating or maintaining the objects listed?). Could it be backdoor'd into all_meta_types so that it, itself is listed in the pulldown, or could it have a ZMI tab of it's own (Both of these are easier than live patching the DTML)? About ZShell : IF and ONLY if you want to use ZShell from the right frame of the ZMI (manage_main) you currently have to modify manage_main to put a text input field somewhere on it. Then running ZShell from there applies ZShell commands to the current folderish object. (Of course you can in any case use ZShell by pointing your web browser to it) Of course ZShell could use a special tab, or another clever solution, but IMHO this is really NOT the problem here. The problem is not about ZShell, ExternalEditor, or any other Zope product, but if I understand correctly it is about extending, not replacing, the Zope's main management interface. Jim please correct me if I'm wrong. That's why I proposed to add three loops in manage_main, to loop over three different types of plugins. Each Zope product which wants to extend the ZMI should register itself once as a ZMI plugin of three sorts : - top ZMI plugin : displayed once at the top (ex : ZShell) - line ZMI plugin : displayed once for each object (ex : External Editor) - bottom ZMI plugin : displayed once at the bottom (ex : xxx) registering a ZMI plugin would be as simple as : root.registerZMIPlugin(top|line|bottom, self) or : root.registerTopZMIPlugin(self) root.registerLineZMIPlugin(self) root.registerBottomZMIPlugin(self) self represents the object which wants to register as a ZMI plugin. It would have to provide at least one of the three methods : TopZMIPlugin(self, obj) LineZMIPlugin(self, obj) BottomZMIPlugin(self, obj) these three methods would have to render some html snippet, e.g. a form with a text input field for ZShell, or a nice icon with a link for External Editor. obj would be the object on which the method applies, e.g. current folder, or current object in the object listing. This way manage_main could be rendered more powerful by just adding three dtml-in in it, and its aspect wouldn't even change in case no ZMI plugin would be registered (which is the case with a base Zope installation). any comment ? thx for reading Jerome Alet ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] A Modest Proposal Concerning Monkey Patches
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 09:33:02PM +0200, Jerome Alet wrote: registering a ZMI plugin would be as simple as : root.registerZMIPlugin(top|line|bottom, self) or : root.registerTopZMIPlugin(self) root.registerLineZMIPlugin(self) root.registerBottomZMIPlugin(self) self represents the object which wants to register as a ZMI plugin. I forgot to add that root in this case means any unique Zope object which we are certain is always present (e.g. the root object or the ControlPanel), which would register all plugins as its own properties and could list all plugins (that's why the ControlPanel is a good idea, but I don't know if it would support this functionnality easily). hoping this gets clearer now Jerome Alet ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] A Modest Proposal Concerning Monkey Patches
There is a large problem looming with Moneky Patches. The problem is that monkey patches are so Highlander. There can be Only One. For example, there are at least five or six products that monkey patch manage_main. Each simply replaces whatever manage_main exists at the time of instantation, and blows away any previous monkey patch. Some coordinated way of dealing with this problem needs to be arrived at. Proposal: for concreteness sake, suppose manage_main is being patched. A monkey patch author does the following: 1) checks to see if the file being patched is in $(INSTANCE_HOME)/tmp A) If not, he proceeds directly with the patch B) If so, he makes whatever checks he can to determine if he can update the file in $(INSTANCE_HOME)/tmp. i) If he cannot, it is his decision whether to follow current practice and simply blow away the current monkey patch (Boo! Hiss!) or, ii) fail (sigh, curse!). 2) If the monkey patch is installed, then the installed file is written in $(INSTANCE_HOME)/tmp. I.e., the new manage_main.py is written to $(INSTANCE_HOME)/tmp. This assumes that z2.py is modified so that it clears out $(INSTANCE_HOME)/tmp on each start. It might be also be a good idea to keep a section of comments at the top of the monkeypatch file showing the history of monkeypatch application. Comments? Jim Penny ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] A Modest Proposal Concerning Monkey Patches
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Jim Penny wrote: B) If so, he makes whatever checks he can to determine if he can update the file in $(INSTANCE_HOME)/tmp. Updating a (disk based) file and monkey patching don't seem to go together in my mind. I'm really unclear what you are proposing here. 2) If the monkey patch is installed, then the installed file is written in $(INSTANCE_HOME)/tmp. I.e., the new manage_main.py is written to $(INSTANCE_HOME)/tmp. Again, monkey patching doesn't modify source code, so I don't know what would be getting written into tmp. Comments? Didn't someone else make a proposal (with code) to handle this? Was it PatchKit? But yes, some standard would be helpful, possibly with supporting utilities, to allow multiple monkeypatches coexist, I think. On the other hand, in Zope3 you just change the zcml files...although I think there was a discusion of an analogous issue there (coexistence of multiple modifications to the same area) and I'm not sure a conclusion was reached (but I can't remember for sure). --RDM ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] A Modest Proposal Concerning Monkey Patches
I know I will regret that I said this, but this is really symptomatic of a more basic need. The need to extend manage_main. This has been identified as a hot spot for products to monkey with. Why don't we go right to the source and make manage_main extensible so that monkey patching it isn't necessary? -Casey On Tuesday 13 August 2002 01:22 pm, Jim Penny wrote: There is a large problem looming with Moneky Patches. The problem is that monkey patches are so Highlander. There can be Only One. For example, there are at least five or six products that monkey patch manage_main. Each simply replaces whatever manage_main exists at the time of instantation, and blows away any previous monkey patch. Some coordinated way of dealing with this problem needs to be arrived at. Proposal: for concreteness sake, suppose manage_main is being patched. A monkey patch author does the following: 1) checks to see if the file being patched is in $(INSTANCE_HOME)/tmp A) If not, he proceeds directly with the patch B) If so, he makes whatever checks he can to determine if he can update the file in $(INSTANCE_HOME)/tmp. i) If he cannot, it is his decision whether to follow current practice and simply blow away the current monkey patch (Boo! Hiss!) or, ii) fail (sigh, curse!). 2) If the monkey patch is installed, then the installed file is written in $(INSTANCE_HOME)/tmp. I.e., the new manage_main.py is written to $(INSTANCE_HOME)/tmp. This assumes that z2.py is modified so that it clears out $(INSTANCE_HOME)/tmp on each start. It might be also be a good idea to keep a section of comments at the top of the monkeypatch file showing the history of monkeypatch application. Comments? Jim Penny ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ) ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] A Modest Proposal Concerning Monkey Patches
On Tue Aug 13, 2002, Jim Penny wrote:
There is a large problem looming with Moneky Patches. The problem is
that monkey patches are so Highlander. There can be Only One.
For example, there are at least five or six products that monkey patch
manage_main. Each simply replaces whatever manage_main exists at the
time of instantation, and blows away any previous monkey patch. Some
coordinated way of dealing with this problem needs to be arrived at.
And if you upgrade Zope, the patched version of manage_main will discard
any changes made in the new version of Zope.
Proposal:
[ideas on how to check for previous changes and what to do about it]
Here is a more surgical option for small changes: Instead of
indiscriminately replacing the whole function or method, decompile and
look for and replace only that part of the code that you want to change.
In that way, as long as that part of the code remains valid between
versions, the change probably remains valid, and you apply it. If you
can't find the part of the code that you want to change, then some other
change you are not aware of happened, so do not apply your change. I use
decompyle and re to do the work. Here is an example:
-- code snippet from my site monkey patch product --
from decompyle import decompyle
import re
import cStringIO
# -
# 'Fix' dtml-in so previous-sequence and next-sequence are
# available everywhere in the batch
from DocumentTemplate.DT_In import InClass
tochangeF = cStringIO.StringIO()
decompyle(InClass.renderwb.im_func.func_code,out=tochangeF)
tochange = tochangeF.getvalue()
tochangeF.close()
# The change is to remove the if index == first | last conditions
print 'Changing dtml-in to provide previous and next sequence everywhere
in the batch'
tochange,num =
re.subn(rif\s+\(index\s*==\s*(first|last)\):\s*pkw\['(previous|next)-se
quence'\]\s*=\s*1,
rpkw['\2-sequence'] = 1\n,tochange)
if num == 2:
print 'Success'
# Replacement seemed successful, so go ahead and make the swap
exec 'def renderwb(self,md):\n' + tochange.replace('\n','\n
')[:-4]
InClass.renderwb = renderwb
else:
print 'Was expected to make 2 changes, got %s. Check the DT_In code'
% num
-- end code snippet --
Of course, some monkey patches are so incompatible that even that
approach might not work or produce unexpected results.
Cheers,
Jean
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] A Modest Proposal Concerning Monkey Patches
On Tuesday 13 August 2002 02:10 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue Aug 13, 2002, Jim Penny wrote: There is a large problem looming with Moneky Patches. The problem is that monkey patches are so Highlander. There can be Only One. For example, there are at least five or six products that monkey patch manage_main. Each simply replaces whatever manage_main exists at the time of instantation, and blows away any previous monkey patch. Some coordinated way of dealing with this problem needs to be arrived at. And if you upgrade Zope, the patched version of manage_main will discard any changes made in the new version of Zope. That is why it would be beneficial to make the thing being patched extensible in the first place thereby alleviating the need to patch it. Proposal: [ideas on how to check for previous changes and what to do about it] Here is a more surgical option for small changes: Instead of indiscriminately replacing the whole function or method, decompile and look for and replace only that part of the code that you want to change. In that way, as long as that part of the code remains valid between versions, the change probably remains valid, and you apply it. If you can't find the part of the code that you want to change, then some other change you are not aware of happened, so do not apply your change. I use decompyle and re to do the work. Here is an example: [snip example] I thought about an approach like this, but I think it is susceptible to subtle bugs. It is very hard to predict the interaction of products independently changing the same template. As a product author, trying to support such a thing is not very attractive. I would prefer to make the template itself more flexible then try to jam new code into it sideways at run-time. -Casey ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] A Modest Proposal Concerning Monkey Patches
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Casey Duncan wrote: That is why it would be beneficial to make the thing being patched extensible in the first place thereby alleviating the need to patch it. This is a very good point. Now that we have comitters outside zope corp, Product authors probably ought to think of this as an opportunity to refactor the base zope code. In other words, if you need to monkey patch, instead refactor the code so that there's a hook you can use, and submit the patch for inclusion in the next version of zope. Then you can monkey patch if you need to make your product work with the current zope version, but you won't have to worry about upgrade issues. --RDM ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
