Hi Casey,
--On Mittwoch, August 14, 2002 23:38:52 -0400 Casey Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The Item class mixes in Traversable, which is probably responsible for
making this work TTW. It also gives you a bunch of other stuff that many
Zope classes need, like DAV support, copy support,
At 23:38 2002-08-14 -0400, Casey Duncan said:
The Item class mixes in Traversable, which is probably responsible for
making
this work TTW. It also gives you a bunch of other stuff that many Zope
classes need, like DAV support, copy support, ZMI tab support and security.
It doen't mix-in
Matt Behrens writes:
Zope Bug Day August 2002 was an unqualified success, with our largest
bug total squashed to date: 45! The number of still-open collector
issues dropped by almost 25%. Thanks to all those who participated!
...
I want to note that I am *very* pleased with recent
Casey Duncan wrote:
Anyone care to weigh in with use cases for shared lexicons?
Well, the use case you describe: several indexes with roughly the same lexicon
is the one to watch out for. If you're going to do some quantitative tests on
this, it'd be interesting.
Still, KISS and all that
Johan Carlsson [Torped] wrote:
I'm trying to setup to run with either TextPad, which can run external
program like python scripts
and then parse the result and making Traceback lines linked to the
line/file where the error occurred.
No sure exactly what you're trying to do here, can you
At 10:54 2002-08-15 +0100, Chris Withers wrote:
Johan Carlsson [Torped] wrote:
I'm trying to setup to run with either TextPad, which can run external
program like python scripts
and then parse the result and making Traceback lines linked to the
line/file where the error occurred.
No sure
The original reason to share vocabularies was that multiple fields
often came from the same human vocabulaties. The idea was that vocabularies
would encompass a number of features including:
- Words (or n-grams) used
- Synonyms
- Stemming rules
- Stop words
- Splitting rules
There was,
On Thursday 15 August 2002 09:21 am, Jim Fulton wrote:
The original reason to share vocabularies was that multiple fields
often came from the same human vocabulaties. The idea was that
vocabularies
would encompass a number of features including:
- Words (or n-grams) used
- Synonyms
-
From: Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matt Behrens writes:
Zope Bug Day August 2002 was an unqualified success, with our largest
bug total squashed to date: 45! The number of still-open collector
issues dropped by almost 25%. Thanks to all those who participated!
...
I want to
Casey Duncan wrote:
On Thursday 15 August 2002 09:21 am, Jim Fulton wrote:
...
I'm not sure what you mean. The pipelining is defined and executed in the
lexicon.
My mistake.
I think that there is at least potential value in sharing lexicons.
Of course, a down side is that it
I think that there is at least potential value in sharing lexicons.
Of course, a down side is that it complicates set up.
This is where I say YAGNI and announce that I'll be happy to
refactor the code if and when a real need is discovered.
On the subject of referencing lexicons by path
I guess the main complaint was that given a set of indexes sharing a
lexicon, deleting the lexicon and replacing it with another one had
no effect on the indexes and in fact removes your ability to manage
their lexicon at all. So you must replace all of the indexes to use
the new lexicon by
I can also define any foldmarks I wish in Jed. What do you suggest ?
I actually didn't care until this mail ;-)
--On Donnerstag, August 15, 2002 16:21:15 +0200 Jean Jordaan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# {{{ ... #}}} crutches ;^)
I use a folding editor (jed) and these are the folding
Casey Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The server returns a 200 response status. Strangly, the response
headers do include WWW-Authenticate. So, the xml-rpc code must be
changing the response status.
Yes. It's probably this piece in ZPublisher/xmlrpc.py:
--cut--
# Do the damage.
Hello,
This may be something that cannot easily be fixed, but the permission FTP
Access is required for a user to have WebDAV Access to an object. Since
the method is shared by FTP and WebDAV a more general permission name
should be used.
Thanks,
-Brian
I have lodged a collector issue on this
Rgds
Tim
On Fri, 2002-08-16 at 04:31, Nils Kassube wrote:
Casey Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The server returns a 200 response status. Strangly, the response
headers do include WWW-Authenticate. So, the xml-rpc code must be
changing the
16 matches
Mail list logo