Karl Anderson wrote:
>
> Ken Manheimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > > I dont see this as a problem: You only create a new list when the
> > > > traffic for that proposal gets too great for zope-dev. Threading is
> > > > good enough before that point.
> > >
> > > Yes, but zope-dev has a
Ken Manheimer wrote:
> As i did in my example, by indentation. (This is a primary component of
> the "structure" in StructuredText. Maybe we're not being clear enough
> about that in our explanations of structured text - i would expect that
> not knowing about it could make it much much harder t
Ken Manheimer wrote:
> (I wonder whether having a single quick ref page for structured text,
> linked to on every edit form, would go a long way to reducing those
> objections. Particularly if the quick ref page is clear and concise.)
Not really... the fact that you even need one of those is why
Dieter Maurer wrote:
>
> Chris Withers writes:
> > > A **page** is the result of applying presentation to data in the
> > > object system. A page is a particular result of a URL when viewed
> > > under certain conditions.
> >
> > I'd like to add to this:
> > components used to ma
Hi Shane,
and thanks for Symlink, it's a big step towards solve the problem,
but remains an issue...
It would be great if the symbolic link could have a different id than
the object referenced. But with the __of__ based solution "link.id" is
always "referenced_object.id".
How this could be do
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Ibañez Palomar Juan David wrote:
> It would be great if the symbolic link could have a different id than
> the object referenced. But with the __of__ based solution "link.id" is
> always "referenced_object.id".
>
> How this could be done?
I think you'd need a special kind o
>
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Ibañez Palomar Juan David wrote:
>
> > It would be great if the symbolic link could have a different id than
> > the object referenced. But with the __of__ based solution "link.id" is
> > always "referenced_object.id".
> >
> > How this could be done?
>
> I think you'd
Hi,
You may, like me, have noticed that you can't change security settings
on Image and File objects in Zope 2.2.x.
This is because the __call__ method of these objects was removed by the
appropriate bit of __ac_permissions__ wasn't taken out. The patch in the
PS fixes this...
cheers,
Chris
P
> Hi all,
>
> Yesterday I put up a new proposal on the http://dev.zope.org site that
> documents my vision of PersistentBlob. The main idea is the be able to
> mark blocks of strings (text or binary) content for storage in a file
> system as individual files. (Or blobs in a relation table.)
>
Hi Greg,
Thanks for the pointer. I briefly looked at this Product and the
CVSMixin Product as well, but have one requirement that unfortunately I
_didn't_ explain clearly in my proposal.
I am not using Zope, only the ZODB so a Zope Product will not help me.
My first goal with the proposal was
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Rik Hoekstra wrote:
> Karl Anderson wrote:
> > I read the 2-10 articles that I'm probably interested in, and miss the
> > 95% which is almost always noise.
>
> The question is why you'd want to receive all this if you don't have to
> (as remarked above).
> As I understood it
Grrr That works fine. But it annoys me I cant use a standard function to
that. I like to use a standard function and use the checking that someone
else wrote.
old_id = obj.id()
new_id = ASPNTools.safetymunge(obj.id())
self = obj.aq_parent
ob = obj
self._delObject(old_i
Just wondering if there is a new time frame.
___
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
h
We wished to release the new development version of HiperDom
under the ZPL, but we figured it wouldn't be that simple, as
the license text is all littered with "Digital Creations".
Is it just a matter of s/Digital Creations/Hiperlógica/g? Is
this even legal?
(This message is mostly rethorical, b
Thanks so much for the response...
It turns out, I tried the Python Method and it had the
same basic problem as the DTML Method... however I've now
moved on, using deletageRetrieve to a new thorny issue. ;-)
When I get an object from of another specialist it appears
that it doies not inherit
Martin =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gr=F6nemeyer?= writes:
> if've had little namespace problems with this code-snipped (dtml-method):
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This produces an output like this: 0,0,0,0,0,0,...
When I execute your code (Zope 2.2.2), I get the expected
result.
For me, it
At 06:33 PM 9/29/00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Just wondering if there is a new time frame.
>
FWIW, I have begun writing a SkinScript reference document on the ZPatterns
Wiki. Lots of sections are just outlines at the moment, but it's already
much better than any other available information
At 03:14 PM 9/29/00 -0500, Steve Spicklemire wrote:
>
>Thanks so much for the response...
>
>It turns out, I tried the Python Method and it had the
>same basic problem as the DTML Method... however I've now
>moved on, using deletageRetrieve to a new thorny issue. ;-)
>
>When I get an object from
ZOPE_HOME/lib/python/Shared/DC/ZRDB/TM.py
Glancing over the Transaction TM mixin class... i noticed a line
commit=tpc_abort=tpc_begin
i can understand tpc_begin=commit, but the abort seems strange.
if an abort happens in the two phase commit the equality doesn't
make sense to me.
whats going
19 matches
Mail list logo
