Hi Shane
> Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] SVN: zope.app.openidconsumer/ New
> library for OpenID auth in Zope 3
>
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
> > One question: why is this in zope.app? I think there's a consensus
> > we're trying to pull as much from zope.app as possible.
>
> > Is this going to provide
Hi all,
I've put up a draft of a zope.pipeline proposal:
http://wiki.zope.org/zope3/ZopePipeline
The proposal is intended to explain my thoughts on the subject more
thoroughly.
Shane
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/m
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Tue Feb 24 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Wed Feb 25 12:00:00 2009 UTC.
There were 6 messages: 6 from Zope Tests.
Tests passed OK
---
Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux
From: Zope Tests
Date: Tue Feb 24 20:23:24 EST 2009
URL: http://
2009/2/25 Shane Hathaway :
> Hi all,
>
> I've put up a draft of a zope.pipeline proposal:
>
> http://wiki.zope.org/zope3/ZopePipeline
>
> The proposal is intended to explain my thoughts on the subject more
> thoroughly.
I like the idea, as it definetely cleans up request processing and
publication
Hi Shane,
> http://wiki.zope.org/zope3/ZopePipeline
Thanks for putting this up! In general, I think your goals are very
worthy. I hope we'll end up with more re-usable end/middleware that can
be used by others, including Zope 2 applications like Plone, as a result
of this. Unifying the Zope 2
Hi,
I wonder whether new development patterns
are going to emerge after this :)
https://bespin.mozilla.com/
Regards,
Baiju M
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encodi
Hi Shane
> Betreff: [Zope-dev] Zope.pipeline proposal
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've put up a draft of a zope.pipeline proposal:
>
> http://wiki.zope.org/zope3/ZopePipeline
>
> The proposal is intended to explain my thoughts on the
> subject more thoroughly.
Do you know something about the performan
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> Hanno, would you consider also generating graphs for the grokcore.* packages?
>
> Can you point me to a buildout or virtualenv-friendly way of getting an
> environment with those? Than it should be rather trivial to do for me.
I'm not sure what
Hi there,
In general splitting up interfaces from implementations would help
pluggability. That said, I'm not very much in favor of such a split up
of so many packages at the moment, as the case for pluggability will
need to be made first for each new package created.
I think we should focus o
Hi,
One thing that causes a lot of confusion in the Plone world is that the
directive does not actually create permissions. Or
rather, it does, in the Zope 3 sense, since it creates IPermission
utilities, but in the Zope 2 sense, those are not permissions.
Five has a security policy that cons
Shane Hathaway wrote:
> I've put up a draft of a zope.pipeline proposal:
>
> http://wiki.zope.org/zope3/ZopePipeline
>
> The proposal is intended to explain my thoughts on the subject more
> thoroughly.
+1 for the project. I think this will make it easier to reason about
what goes on in Zope a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> http://wiki.zope.org/zope3/ZopePipeline
>
> Thanks for putting this up! In general, I think your goals are very
> worthy. I hope we'll end up with more re-usable end/middleware that can
> be used by others, including Zope 2
Hey,
Dan Korostelev wrote:
> 2009/2/25 Martijn Faassen :
>> I hope in fact zope.app.* will soon become a dumping ground for
>> deprecated packages providing legacy ZMI support. Of course that will
>> need the consensus that the ZMI *is* legacy software. I think do we
>> already have a consensus th
Dan Korostelev wrote:
> Also, how easy is to integrate existing non-zopeish WSGI middlewares
> into the zope.pipeline? Like some resource injectors or XHTML slimmers
> and so on. It would be really great to be able to do that with single
> ZCML directive.
You can do that with two ZCML directives.
2009/2/25 Martijn Faassen :
> One area that I'd like to see support for is some easy way to turn off
> security proxies. It's rumored there is such a way but with Grok, we
> ended up ripping them off repeatedly anyway. Am I right in that it
> should be possible to put a WSGI endware on top of this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Roger Ineichen wrote:
> Hi Shane
>
>> Betreff: [Zope-dev] Zope.pipeline proposal
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've put up a draft of a zope.pipeline proposal:
>>
>> http://wiki.zope.org/zope3/ZopePipeline
>>
>> The proposal is intended to explain my thoughts
Roger Ineichen wrote:
> Do you know something about the performance of WSGI?
>
> I whould be happy to see some perfomance tests comparing
> WSGI with other server concepts.
WSGI is extremely lightweight, so WSGI itself isn't going to affect
performance. The WSGI servers I know about are reasona
Shane Hathaway wrote:
> Roger Ineichen wrote:
>> Do you know something about the performance of WSGI?
>>
>> I whould be happy to see some perfomance tests comparing
>> WSGI with other server concepts.
>
> WSGI is extremely lightweight, so WSGI itself isn't going to affect
> performance. The WSGI
Shane Hathaway wrote:
> Dan Korostelev wrote:
>> Also, how easy is to integrate existing non-zopeish WSGI middlewares
>> into the zope.pipeline? Like some resource injectors or XHTML slimmers
>> and so on. It would be really great to be able to do that with single
>> ZCML directive.
>
> You can do
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tres Seaver wrote:
> Roger Ineichen wrote:
>> Hi Shane
>
>>> Betreff: [Zope-dev] Zope.pipeline proposal
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I've put up a draft of a zope.pipeline proposal:
>>>
>>> http://wiki.zope.org/zope3/ZopePipeline
>>>
>>> The proposal is in
Martin Aspeli wrote:
> I'm used to using Paste Deploy ini files to configure a WSGI pipeline.
> Is this simply an alternative to that? If so, do we really need our own
> alternative, or could we try to use the Paste Deploy stuff directly?
Yes, you can just use Paste Deploy instead of the ZCML-ba
Hey,
Tres Seaver wrote:
[snip]
> In general, if you need full-on backward compatibility with the existing
> behavior of Zope2 / Zope3 / Grok, switching to a paste-driven WSGI
> pipeline doesn't gain you much speed (but it is not a loss, either).
> If, for a given application, you can relax the BBB
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> What's the overhead of a WSGI middleware? Is the overhead cost in the
> same order of magnitude as a simple function call with a return value or
> is there something inherently more complex going on?
A WSGI middleware app is simply a callable thing that calls the next
a
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 14:33, Baiju M wrote:
> Hi,
> I wonder whether new development patterns
> are going to emerge after this :)
>
> https://bespin.mozilla.com/
It is definitely something that can replace the Zope 2 TTW pattern
with a Zope3 "TTW" pattern.
--
Lennart Regebro: Pythonista, B
Hey,
Shane Hathaway wrote:
> Martin Aspeli wrote:
[snip]
>> create_request -- should this maybe have some compatibility with WebOb
>> requests?
>
> I've looked at WebOb, and my impression is that Zope requests and WebOb
> requests serve completely different purposes. A Zope request is
> essen
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 16:43, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> I think the fact that this workaround is necessary is a bug. The
> directive is supposed to be used to declare new
> permissions, but it does not do that fully in Zope 2. An easy bug fix
> would be to put something like this into Five:
>
>
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 08:46, Baiju M wrote:
> This will not make any change in dependency graph unless zope.location
> become a namespace package.
Yeah, that was what I was thinking, but I just realized that it might
be tricky to have both a zope.location and a zope.location.interfaces.
I haven
Hi all
> Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] Zope.pipeline proposal
>
> Hey,
>
> Tres Seaver wrote:
> [snip]
> > In general, if you need full-on backward compatibility with the
> > existing behavior of Zope2 / Zope3 / Grok, switching to a
> paste-driven
> > WSGI pipeline doesn't gain you much speed (but
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Roger Ineichen wrote:
> Hi all
>
>> Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] Zope.pipeline proposal
>>
>> Hey,
>>
>> Tres Seaver wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> In general, if you need full-on backward compatibility with the
>>> existing behavior of Zope2 / Zope3 / Grok, switch
Hi Tres
> >> http://plope.com/whatsitdoing2
> >>
> >> This is why zope.pipeline is such an important effort to me.
> >> Not that it will immediately make things better, but it would
> >> hopefully open up a path to move the Zope Framework
> forward in this
> >> area.
> >
> > I absolutly agree
Shane Hathaway wrote:
> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> I'm used to using Paste Deploy ini files to configure a WSGI pipeline.
>> Is this simply an alternative to that? If so, do we really need our own
>> alternative, or could we try to use the Paste Deploy stuff directly?
>
> Yes, you can just use Past
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> Shane Hathaway wrote:
>> Roger Ineichen wrote:
>>> Do you know something about the performance of WSGI?
>>>
>>> I whould be happy to see some perfomance tests comparing
>>> WSGI with other server concepts.
>> WSGI is extremely lightweight, so WSGI itself isn't going to af
Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Shane Hathaway wrote:
>> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>>> clean_transaction -- is this not the same as repoze.tm2?
>> No. To mimic the current Zope publisher, we need to commit the
>> transaction shortly after the "call" application is finished, but then a
>> lot of things can sti
Roger Ineichen wrote:
> Hi Tres
>
http://plope.com/whatsitdoing2
This is why zope.pipeline is such an important effort to me.
Not that it will immediately make things better, but it would
hopefully open up a path to move the Zope Framework
>> forward in this
area.
34 matches
Mail list logo
