Hanno Schlichting wrote:
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.
Yay, thanks Hanno!
As I won't have much time to work on this anymore, I would encourage all
of you
Are there any outstanding issues on that Zope211-3.4-integration branch?
If not, I'd like to see it merged, now that ZODB 3.8 has beta'ed.
--
http://worldcookery.com -- Professional Zope documentation and training
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zo
--On 20. Juni 2007 12:04:26 +0200 Philipp von Weitershausen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are there any outstanding issues on that Zope211-3.4-integration branch?
If not, I'd like to see it merged, now that ZODB 3.8 has beta'ed.
The only outstanding issues are ZClasses. If we merge this branc
Stefan H. Holek wrote:
Log message for revision 76597:
Collector #2307: ObjectCopiedEvent not dispatched to sublocations.
...
@@ -130,7 +131,15 @@
if OFS.interfaces.IObjectManager.providedBy(ob):
dispatchToSublocations(ob, event)
[EMAIL PROTECTED](OFS.interfaces.IItem, IO
On 20 Jun 2007, at 12:20 , Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 20. Juni 2007 12:04:26 +0200 Philipp von Weitershausen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are there any outstanding issues on that Zope211-3.4-integration
branch?
If not, I'd like to see it merged, now that ZODB 3.8 has beta'ed.
The only outstan
--On 20. Juni 2007 12:29:29 +0200 Philipp von Weitershausen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 20 Jun 2007, at 12:20 , Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 20. Juni 2007 12:04:26 +0200 Philipp von Weitershausen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are there any outstanding issues on that Zope211-3.4-integration
bra
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> On 20 Jun 2007, at 12:20 , Andreas Jung wrote:
>> --On 20. Juni 2007 12:04:26 +0200 Philipp von Weitershausen
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Are there any outstanding issues on that Zope211-3.4-integration
>
I took my cues from how ObjectModifiedEvent is handled. I figured
copied and moved should be treated the same. Also, there is this
comment in OFS/subscribers.py:
# The following subscribers should really be defined in ZCML
# but we don't have enough control over subscriber ordering for
# that
On 20 Jun 2007, at 13:01 , Tres Seaver wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
On 20 Jun 2007, at 12:20 , Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 20. Juni 2007 12:04:26 +0200 Philipp von Weitershausen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are there any outstanding issues on that Zope211-3.4-integration
branch?
If not,
On 20 Jun 2007, at 13:16 , Stefan H. Holek wrote:
I took my cues from how ObjectModifiedEvent is handled. I figured
copied and moved should be treated the same. Also, there is this
comment in OFS/subscribers.py:
# The following subscribers should really be defined in ZCML
# but we don't have
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Tue Jun 19 12:00:00 2007 UTC to Wed Jun 20 12:00:00 2007 UTC.
There were 5 messages: 5 from Zope Unit Tests.
Tests passed OK
---
Subject: OK : Zope-2.7 Python-2.3.6 : Linux
From: Zope Unit Tests
Date: Tue Jun 19 20:50:46 EDT 2007
URL
Tres Seaver schrieb:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joachim Schmitz wrote:
Hi,
We are now using the QueueCatalog as a replacement of the
portal_catalog, and renamed the original portal_catalog to
portal_catalog_real. In our local toolset.xml I definded
That works, but in
This should of course have read: "I took my cues from how
*ObjectMovedEvent* is handled."
On 20. Jun 2007, at 13:16, Stefan H. Holek wrote:
I took my cues from how ObjectModifiedEvent is handled. I figured
copied and moved should be treated the same. Also, there is this
comment in OFS/subs
13 matches
Mail list logo