[Zope-dev] Zope Tests: 6 OK

2009-11-25 Thread Zope Tests Summarizer
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Tue Nov 24 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Wed Nov 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 Nov 24 20:38:32 EST 2009 URL:

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope3 server with SIGSEGV - what to do?

2009-11-25 Thread Benji York
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Hermann Himmelbauer du...@qwer.tk wrote: Ah, thanks that could be. My current version is zope.security-3.4.1 (as from KGS-3.4.0). The real bad thing about this is that it seems I'm stuck with that release as trying to upgrade to zope.security-3.7.1 fails due

[Zope-dev] z3c.schema2xml and z3c.schema2json

2009-11-25 Thread Jan-Wijbrand Kolman
Hi, I'm about to work a bit on z3c.schema2json [1]. As has been briefly discussed before (a while ago [2]), z3c. schema2json is so similar to z3c.schema2xml [3] in what it does and how it does it, that I wonder about merging the two packages somehow. One way to do this - maybe - is to use

Re: [Zope-dev] Releasing zope.browserresource

2009-11-25 Thread Chris Withers
Thomas Lotze wrote: Stephan Richter wrote: On Tuesday 24 November 2009, Thomas Lotze wrote: Could somebody please give me PyPI rights for zope.browserresource? I'd like to release a new version of it which includes the recent fixes to its dependencies. Thank you very much. I am in the

Re: [Zope-dev] Releasing zope.browserresource

2009-11-25 Thread Benji York
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Thomas Lotze t...@gocept.com wrote: Argh, now the PyPI UI is really broken for me... No, seriously - thank you very much. If you're a GreaseMonkey user, try this: // turn off (potentially) long list of projects GM_addStyle('div#document-navigation {overflow:

Re: [Zope-dev] Releasing zope.browserresource

2009-11-25 Thread Thomas Lotze
Benji York wrote: On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Thomas Lotze t...@gocept.com wrote: Argh, now the PyPI UI is really broken for me... No, seriously - thank you very much. If you're a GreaseMonkey user, try this: // turn off (potentially) long list of projects

[Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Martijn Faassen
Hi there, Reading the thread Chris McDonough started (and ended) about modifying the way utility registration works reminded me of the following thinking. It's quite independent and probably even antithetical to Chris's approach as it uses interfaces, but that's fine. The goal is to make it

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Benji York
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com wrote: [snip good stuff] Multiadapter: IFoo.multi(x, y) I'm not sure I like the following suggestion better than the above, but throwing it out there anyway: Multiadapter: IFoo((x,y)) Multiadapter with default:

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Matthew Wilkes
On 2009-11-25, at 1601, Benji York wrote: I'm not sure I like the following suggestion better than the above, but throwing it out there anyway: Multiadapter: IFoo((x,y)) I know it's probably a spurious use case, but what if I want to adapt a tuple? Matt

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Gary Poster
On Nov 25, 2009, at 10:41 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote: ... Thoughts? FWIW, this mirrors some of the thoughts I've had, after a lot of discussions with Launchpad/Canonical engineers about the pros and cons of the Zope interface and component code. My OSCON presentation touched on some of these

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Thomas Lotze
Martijn Faassen wrote: Adapter: IFoo(x) [...] Multiadapter: IFoo.multi(x, y) [...] Utility: IFoo.utility() [or possibly IFoo() instead?] What about a simple and consistent API for all components including utilities, adapters and multiadapters: IFoo() IFoo(x) IFoo(x, y) I

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Gary Poster
On Nov 25, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Thomas Lotze wrote: Martijn Faassen wrote: Adapter: IFoo(x) [...] Multiadapter: IFoo.multi(x, y) [...] Utility: IFoo.utility() [or possibly IFoo() instead?] What about a simple and consistent API for all components including

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Thomas Lotze
Gary Poster wrote: On Nov 25, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Thomas Lotze wrote: What about a simple and consistent API for all components including utilities, adapters and multiadapters: IFoo() IFoo(x) IFoo(x, y) I seem to remember there had been some discussion at some point about dropping

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Gary Poster
On Nov 25, 2009, at 11:34 AM, Thomas Lotze wrote: Gary Poster wrote: On Nov 25, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Thomas Lotze wrote: What about a simple and consistent API for all components including utilities, adapters and multiadapters: IFoo() IFoo(x) IFoo(x, y) I seem to remember there

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Chris McDonough
Gary Poster wrote: FWIW, I'm saying that utilities and adapters are different. I share your/Martijn's/other people's general thoughts about merging adapters and multiadapters in the interface __call__ syntax. There might should be more obvious APIs for just *retrieving* an adapter based

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Gary Poster
On Nov 25, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Chris McDonough wrote: Gary Poster wrote: FWIW, I'm saying that utilities and adapters are different. I share your/Martijn's/other people's general thoughts about merging adapters and multiadapters in the interface __call__ syntax. There might should be

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Chris McDonough
Chris McDonough wrote: There might should be more obvious APIs for just *retrieving* an adapter based on a set of interfaces; it's useful to be able to retrieve an adapter without invoking it. Currently this is possible via registry.adapters.loookup, which is fine. And I know it's

Re: [Zope-dev] Releasing zope.browserresource

2009-11-25 Thread Marius Gedminas
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 04:30:57PM +0100, Thomas Lotze wrote: Benji York wrote: On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Thomas Lotze t...@gocept.com wrote: Argh, now the PyPI UI is really broken for me... No, seriously - thank you very much. If you're a GreaseMonkey user, try this: //

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Tres Seaver
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Benji York wrote: On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com wrote: [snip good stuff] Multiadapter: IFoo.multi(x, y) I'm not sure I like the following suggestion better than the above, but throwing it out

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Tres Seaver
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Matthew Wilkes wrote: On 2009-11-25, at 1601, Benji York wrote: I'm not sure I like the following suggestion better than the above, but throwing it out there anyway: Multiadapter: IFoo((x,y)) I know it's probably a spurious use case,

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Tres Seaver
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Gary Poster wrote: On Nov 25, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Thomas Lotze wrote: Martijn Faassen wrote: Adapter: IFoo(x) [...] Multiadapter: IFoo.multi(x, y) [...] Utility: IFoo.utility() [or possibly IFoo() instead?] What about a simple and

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Fabio Tranchitella
* 2009-11-25 19:35, Tres Seaver wrote: IFoo() IFoo(x) IFoo(x, y) You can't use an arbitrary number of positional arguments for the contexts, because we need to support the named / default cases too. I'm probably saying something very stupid... What's wrong with the it? Can't we define

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Marius Gedminas
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 01:29:25PM -0500, Tres Seaver wrote: Matthew Wilkes wrote: On 2009-11-25, at 1601, Benji York wrote: I'm not sure I like the following suggestion better than the above, but throwing it out there anyway: Multiadapter: IFoo((x,y)) I know it's probably a

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Brian Sutherland
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 05:17:17PM +0100, Thomas Lotze wrote: What about a simple and consistent API for all components including utilities, adapters and multiadapters: IFoo() IFoo(x) IFoo(x, y) This also doesn't allow you to use this (anti?)pattern: class Foo: implements(IFoo)

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Tres Seaver
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Brian Sutherland wrote: On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 05:17:17PM +0100, Thomas Lotze wrote: What about a simple and consistent API for all components including utilities, adapters and multiadapters: IFoo() IFoo(x) IFoo(x, y) This also doesn't

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Hanno Schlichting
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote: Hmm, I may be missing something here, but if Foo implements IFoo, then the getAdapter lookup for it will short circuit, leading you into infinite recursion.  Except that it doesn't: [snip example] which strikes me as

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Martijn Faassen
Thomas Lotze wrote: [snip] What about a simple and consistent API for all components including utilities, adapters and multiadapters: IFoo() IFoo(x) IFoo(x, y) The last one won't work if we want to maintain backwards compatibility. The second argument is the default. Regards, Martijn

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Ross Patterson
Marius Gedminas mar...@gedmin.as writes: On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 01:29:25PM -0500, Tres Seaver wrote: Matthew Wilkes wrote: On 2009-11-25, at 1601, Benji York wrote: I'm not sure I like the following suggestion better than the above, but throwing it out there anyway: Multiadapter:

[Zope-dev] split out zope.component mechanics into a separate package (was Re: improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs)

2009-11-25 Thread Chris McDonough
Chris McDonough wrote: If some set of ZCA APIs made it the responsibility of the *caller* to invoke the adapter with arguments would go a long way between normalizing the difference between utilities and adapters (because they would essentially then be the same thing). The very core

Re: [Zope-dev] split out zope.component mechanics into a separate package (was Re: improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs)

2009-11-25 Thread Gary Poster
On Nov 25, 2009, at 5:08 PM, Chris McDonough wrote: Chris McDonough wrote: If some set of ZCA APIs made it the responsibility of the *caller* to invoke the adapter with arguments would go a long way between normalizing the difference between utilities and adapters (because they would

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Roger
Hi all Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs On Nov 25, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Thomas Lotze wrote: Martijn Faassen wrote: Adapter: IFoo(x) [...] Multiadapter: IFoo.multi(x, y) [...] Utility: IFoo.utility() [or

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Thomas Lotze
Martijn Faassen wrote: Thomas Lotze wrote: [snip] What about a simple and consistent API for all components including utilities, adapters and multiadapters: IFoo() IFoo(x) IFoo(x, y) The last one won't work if we want to maintain backwards compatibility. The second argument is the

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Wolfgang Schnerring
* On Nov 25, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Thomas Lotze wrote: What about a simple and consistent API for all components including utilities, adapters and multiadapters: IFoo() IFoo(x) IFoo(x, y) I quite like the simplicity of this spelling, so I want to be sure *why* it must be ruled out.

Re: [Zope-dev] Releasing zope.browserresource

2009-11-25 Thread Michael Howitz
Am 25.11.2009 um 15:49 schrieb Chris Withers: [...] Yes, PyPI is broken if you're an admin of many packages, feel free to me too on this issue: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailaid=2793544group_id=66150atid=513503 It's fixed since yesterday. Yours sincerely, -- Michael Howitz ·

Re: [Zope-dev] Releasing zope.browserresource

2009-11-25 Thread Chris Withers
Michael Howitz wrote: Am 25.11.2009 um 15:49 schrieb Chris Withers: [...] Yes, PyPI is broken if you're an admin of many packages, feel free to me too on this issue: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailaid=2793544group_id=66150atid=513503 It's fixed since yesterday. Well, by some