Lennart Regebro wrote:
Are you planning to up the python version to 2.2? Because in that case I'd
be happy to put in Authentication support in MailHost. Smtplib.py in 2.1.2
doesn't support authentication.
I don't know how people are currently using Zope with 2.2. There is
probably some
In my own casual experimentation, Zope worked okay by itself on Mandrake
Linux 8.2b4 with Python 2.2, but ZEO refused to work.
For what it's worth.
Gary
- Original Message -
From: Matt Behrens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lennart Regebro wrote:
Are you planning to up the python version to
I don't know how people are currently using Zope with 2.2.
Well, I guess I could make a check for the Zope version, so not to tie up
Zope 2.6 to Python 2.2.
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
Are you planning to up the python version to 2.2? Because in that case I'd
be happy to put in Authentication support in MailHost. Smtplib.py in 2.1.2
doesn't support authentication.
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FYI, everyone who's following this: I have hijacked
http://dev.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Proposals/InstallationAndConfiguration
for this purpose. :-)
Awesome. Exactly how I'd like the default zope install to be structured.
:-)
Adam
___
Zope-Dev
Behrens Matt - Grand Rapids wrote:
This isn't exciting by any means unless you're one of the people who
package Zope up for distribution, or maybe you're one of the people who
manage lots of little Zopes on one system; but I'd like to revive the
grand unified Zope installation and control
: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!
Hi:
I would like to propose my Paste Reference/symlink hack for
inclusion into Zope 2.6
C U!
-- Mario Valente
___
Zope-Dev maillist
Hi:
I think that the possibility of having inactive objects, objects that
are instantied, exist in the ZODB and in the folder tree but are
invisibile to the Zope machinery (acquisition, rendering, itemizing)
by setting/unsettting a property flag would also be something of
extreme
On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Joachim Werner wrote:
- All the basic API (like store, delete, edit, ...) must be free of
HTTP specifics, so that I can modifiy content either over a web frontend or
over WebDAV, FTP, ... - and even via a fat client application like a
wxPython application. Currently that
Hi:
I would like to propose my Paste Reference/symlink hack for
inclusion into Zope 2.6
C U!
-- Mario Valente
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML
On Wednesday 06 March 2002 04:58 am, Joachim Werner wrote:
Hi!
What I'd expect from Zope 2.6 depends a bit on when Zope 3 will be
available.
If we are talking about a couple of months, I'd prefer only having bug
fixes in 2.5.x (and no 2.6 at all). If we are talking about more than half
a
At 02:10 PM 3/6/2002 +0100, Jerome Alet wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Joachim Werner wrote:
- All the basic API (like store, delete, edit, ...) must be free of
HTTP specifics, so that I can modifiy content either over a web frontend or
over WebDAV, FTP, ... - and even via a fat client
Joachim Werner writes:
- Storage should be completely separate from the data model. It should be
possible to design a content class and then store it either in ZODB, the
file system, an RDBMS or an LDAP server or whatever.
Isn't that already possible (implement your alternative storage
that
+1 for cookie crumbler
Ah right, i didn't look at that before, thats what i thought of.
And with the mention of the Zope Expansion Kit i think this really
should go into core (or somewhere very next to id), including an option
to be created with a standard user folder automatically.
On Sat,
See below
This isn't exciting by any means unless you're one of the people who
package Zope up for distribution, or maybe you're one of the people who
manage lots of little Zopes on one system; but I'd like to revive the
grand unified Zope installation and control proposal that has been
On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 03:55, Anthony Baxter wrote:
I think the performance hit is really quite minimal for two if statements at
the entry and exit point(s) of a function to turn the behaviour on and off.
I'm not convinced. Those small increments of performance really add up.
Look at how
On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 03:47, Richard Jones wrote:
On Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:40, Casey Duncan wrote:
I agree, monkey patches are perfect for this. That
makes them totally transparent to the application and
Zope for that matter. There's nothing wrong with them
in the right application.
My
seb bacon wrote:
Yes - I would bet the performace difference is in the order of
hundredths of a second.
Which I would prefer not to have added to the several hundred other
hundredths-of-a-second
little differences-that-people-thought-wouldn't-make-a-difference that have been added
to
Zope
On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 10:47, Chris Withers wrote:
seb bacon wrote:
Yes - I would bet the performace difference is in the order of
hundredths of a second.
Which I would prefer not to have added to the several hundred other
hundredths-of-a-second
little
Gary Poster wrote:
If there is any interest in spiffing the Virtual Host Folder up for
inclusion in Zope 2.6, I'll do the work. It requires Ordered Folder 0.5.1,
and needs just a bit more spiffing.
Why does it require ordered folder? What does that have to do with virtual hosting?
cheers,
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 21:25, seb bacon wrote:
Absolutely ... and I would also like to see Richards excellent Call
Profiler service become part of the core.
I'm definitely putting the profiler into 2.6 - there's just an open
question of where it gets put. The question was asked on
I'd like to see the ZSyncer Product, or a variant thereof, included in
Zope by default. That is, I'd like Synchronization, to a be a default
property of Zope objects, so that objects/content can be pushed and
pulled between two Zope installations.
Thanks for the enthusiasm but its still too
Ive never really understood the motivation for wanting https support
direct in Zope ZServer isnt robust enough to be exposed to the raw
internet without risk. Today (and perhaps for the forseeable future,
because its not clear that Zope want to take on the responsibility of
ZServer may
Perhaps synchronization over ZEO as well as XML-RPC? Thoughts?
Sean
-Original Message-
From: Andy McKay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 5:04 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!
I'd like to see
seb bacon wrote
[CallProfiler]
FWIW, my own opinion is that it should not take the 'MonkeyPatch'
approach.
Why? Any other approach means a slowdown in the Zope code regardless of
whether profiling is turned on or off... monkeypatching means you end
up with zero slowdown when not profiling.
--- Anthony Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
seb bacon wrote
[CallProfiler]
FWIW, my own opinion is that it should not take
the 'MonkeyPatch'
approach.
Why? Any other approach means a slowdown in the Zope
code regardless of
whether profiling is turned on or off...
monkeypatching
On Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:40, Casey Duncan wrote:
I agree, monkey patches are perfect for this. That
makes them totally transparent to the application and
Zope for that matter. There's nothing wrong with them
in the right application.
My main concern is the use of monkeypatching in the core
From: Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gary Poster wrote:
If there is any interest in spiffing the Virtual Host Folder up for
inclusion in Zope 2.6, I'll do the work. It requires Ordered Folder
0.5.1,
and needs just a bit more spiffing.
Why does it require ordered folder? What does
Anthony Baxter wrote:
seb bacon wrote
[CallProfiler]
FWIW, my own opinion is that it should not take the 'MonkeyPatch'
approach.
Why? Any other approach means a slowdown in the Zope code regardless of
whether profiling is turned on or off... monkeypatching means you end
up with
On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 03:00:10PM +, Toby Dickenson wrote:
Are there any common scenarios which need the protection given by
https, but do not need the protection given by a front-end-proxy?
Yes, running zope in intranet environments where the connection to
a localhost proxy is not
On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 07:53:35AM -0500, Paul Everitt wrote:
A gentle reminder on some of the posts in this thread. Please don't
respond with I'd really like some good idea. Respond with I'm
willing to do the work for some good idea. That's part of the point
with Brian's note.
You
Christian Theune wrote:
On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 07:53:35AM -0500, Paul Everitt wrote:
A gentle reminder on some of the posts in this thread. Please don't
respond with I'd really like some good idea. Respond with I'm
willing to do the work for some good idea. That's part of the point
with
: Friday, March 01, 2002 2:54 AM
To: Brian Lloyd; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!
I wholeheartedly agree that 2.6 needs to be significantly a community
effort. While I know that many people are engaged in the Zope 3 effort
I'd like to see ZSQL methods altered so that bind variables could be used in
SQL queries.
This would improve SQL operations for at least Oracle, which is the one db
I know of that uses bind variables to speed it's querie-management.
This is filed as a bugreport in the collector previously but
Absolutely ... and I would also like to see Richards excellent Call
Profiler service become part of the core.
I'm definitely putting the profiler into 2.6 - there's just an open question
of where it gets put. The question was asked on zope-coders, and got no
response. I figure if
I'd like to see the ZSyncer Product, or a variant thereof, included in
Zope by default. That is, I'd like Synchronization, to a be a default
property of Zope objects, so that objects/content can be pushed and
pulled between two Zope installations.
I would use ZCVSFolder or somewhat
seb bacon wrote:
I think the use cases driving synchronisation requirements are not yet
sufficiently understood. Agreed, it's a feature that many people need,
but I get the impression it would be premature to include ZSyncer as is
in Zope without more detailed planning. On the other hand,
Steve Alexander wrote:
Yeah... maybe we need a standard Zope Expansion Kit that is a cohesive
package of products that aren't in the Zope core, but are officially
sanctioned and versioned and released alongside versions of Zope.
I thought that's what the /Products directory in the standard
Everitt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Behrens Matt - Grand Rapids [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 7:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!
+1, and I say that knowing that it means I have to help. I'm willing
I would say, make SSL part of the standard z2.py, so you can turn on/off,
specify address, etc. of https ports just as you do with http ports (and of
course integrated with siteaccess2, etc.)
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 01 Mar 2002 09:48:08 -0500, marc lindahl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I would say, make SSL part of the standard z2.py, so you can turn on/off,
specify address, etc. of https ports just as you do with http ports (and of
course integrated with siteaccess2, etc.)
Ive never really understood
On 3/1/02 7:30 AM, Chris McDonough [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd suggest starting with the combination of Evan's zopemake and zctl
scripts. One thing that zopemake could be extended with is an
autoconf-style configure that figures out where the appropriate version of
Python is, which C
On Fri, 2002-03-01 at 04:16, Dario Lopez-Kästen wrote:
I'd like to see ZSQL methods altered so that bind variables could be used in
SQL queries.
+1, even though MySQL doesn't bind variables (yet, apparently in the
works for 4.0).
Another thing I would like (and could probably write) is an
Brian Lloyd wrote:
Let's get a discussion
started to define 2.6.
This isn't exciting by any means unless you're one of the people who
package Zope up for distribution, or maybe you're one of the people who
manage lots of little Zopes on one system; but I'd like to revive the
grand unified
On Thursday 28 February 2002 04:03 pm, you wrote:
Brian Lloyd wrote:
Let's get a discussion
started to define 2.6.
This isn't exciting by any means unless you're one of the people who
package Zope up for distribution, or maybe you're one of the people who
manage lots of little Zopes
I've modified HTTPResponse and ZServer/HTTPResponse.py to allow for gzip
content
encoding on a response-by-response basis. I'm mostly using this with
xml-rpc, but it
could be generalized and combined with a gzipper- cache manager.
I'd like this. It would help with the lack of
2.6 planning - call for contributors!
I've modified HTTPResponse and ZServer/HTTPResponse.py to allow for gzip
content
encoding on a response-by-response basis. I'm mostly using this with
xml-rpc, but it
could be generalized and combined with a gzipper- cache manager.
I'd like this. It would
Let's get a discussion
started to define 2.6
I'd like to see the ZSyncer Product, or a variant thereof, included in
Zope by default. That is, I'd like Synchronization, to a be a default
property of Zope objects, so that objects/content can be pushed and
pulled between two Zope
Let's get a discussion
started to define 2.6
I'd like to see the ZSyncer Product, or a variant thereof, included in
Zope by default. That is, I'd like Synchronization, to a be a default
property of Zope objects, so that objects/content can be pushed and
pulled between two
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 15:17, Eric Roby wrote:
Let's get a discussion
started to define 2.6
I'd like to see the ZSyncer Product, or a variant thereof, included in
Zope by default. That is, I'd like Synchronization, to a be a default
property of Zope objects, so that
Hi,
John Ziniti schrieb:
Let's get a discussion
started to define 2.6
I'd like to see the ZSyncer Product, or a variant thereof, included in
Zope by default. That is, I'd like Synchronization, to a be a default
property of Zope objects, so that objects/content can be pushed
I wholeheartedly agree that 2.6 needs to be significantly a community
effort. While I know that many people are engaged in the Zope 3 effort,
we also need to get some people engaged on defining and producing
2.6 in the interim. There is not much on the plan right now, so the
possibilities
52 matches
Mail list logo
