On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 10:15:07AM -0800, Simon Michael wrote:
> Excellent, I hope it's a regular feature. The summary should probably go on
> some blog that will be picked up by
> planetzope.org/planet.zope.org, too.
+1
Marius Gedminas
--
http://pov.lt/ -- Zope 3 consulting and development
On 03/03/2010 09:01 AM, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 10:15:07AM -0800, Simon Michael wrote:
>> Excellent, I hope it's a regular feature. The summary should probably go on
>> some blog that will be picked up by
>> planetzope.org/planet.zope.org, too.
Good idea - so: where's so
Am Mittwoch 03 März 2010 01:28:21 schrieb Chris McDonough:
> On 3/2/10 2:50 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
> >> On 3/2/10 1:09 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> >>> Hi there,
> >>>
> >>> > Chris McDonough suggests to ponder further structuring of the
Hi folks,
the ZCML directives in zope.component register components using the utility
method handler, which looks like:
def handler(methodName, *args, **kwargs):
method = getattr(zope.component.getGlobalSiteManager(), methodName)
In our company-specific framework (which is far far fr
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 10:06:18AM +0100, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
> Am Mittwoch 03 März 2010 01:28:21 schrieb Chris McDonough:
> > On 3/2/10 2:50 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
> > >> On 3/2/10 1:09 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> > >>> Hi there,
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 09:11:41AM +0100, Christian Theune wrote:
> On 03/03/2010 09:01 AM, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 10:15:07AM -0800, Simon Michael wrote:
> >> Excellent, I hope it's a regular feature. The summary should probably go
> >> on some blog that will be picked
Hi Fabio
> Betreff: [Zope-dev] zope.component.zcml and global registry
>
> Hi folks,
>
> the ZCML directives in zope.component register components
> using the utility method handler, which looks like:
>
> def handler(methodName, *args, **kwargs):
> method =
> getattr(zope.compone
Hello roger,
* 2010-03-03 11:36, Roger wrote:
> Not sure if I understand you correct. But what do you think
> about the following:
>
> - implement a new optional attribute useLocal=True
> in the directive and then configure the directive action
> and make use of the (local) getSiteManager me
Thanks for the summary!
> The current state of nightly builds is a bit untidy. According to
> http://docs.zope.org/zopetoolkit/process/buildbots.html there's four buildbot
> installations with various scopes. The last two in this listing are currently
> non-functional.
The third one is online
I forgot about this meeting, of course. Will try to do the next one again.
Something I want to discuss is what we do with the proposed API
changes (unless something was done, and I missed it) and Python 3
compatibility.
--
Lennart Regebro: http://regebro.wordpress.com/
Python 3 Porting: http://py
Am Mittwoch 03 März 2010 11:06:22 schrieb Marius Gedminas:
> > def zope_community_work():
> >while 1:
>
> 'while True' looks better.
>
> > someone = random.choice(community)
> > give_input(someone)
> >
> > disagree_members = ['cmember1', 'cmember2', 'cmember3']
> > disag
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Tue Mar 2 12:00:00 2010 UTC to Wed Mar 3 12:00:00 2010 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 Mar 2 20:36:58 EST 2010
URL: http://
Hi Fabio
> Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] zope.component.zcml and global registry
>
> Hello roger,
>
> * 2010-03-03 11:36, Roger wrote:
> > Not sure if I understand you correct. But what do you think
> about the
> > following:
> >
> > - implement a new optional attribute useLocal=True
> > in the
Hi Tres!
Tres Seaver wrote:
> Chris Withers wrote:
>> By all means, document virtualenv as an option, but blessing it as "the
>> one true way" is a bit much...
I'm also surprised that you propose to make this *the* recommended way.
> Here's my rationale:
>
> - - The docs are intended primarily
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Roger wrote:
> I like to use getGlobalSiteManager by default because this
> doesn't force a database access and load the local site
> manager if the site is a local site.
The database access only happens if a local site is set into the
corresponding thread local.
yuppie wrote:
> I consider the self-contained scenario still as experimental.
You might, I don't. I've deployed this happily in production with a few
customer now.
Just because you don't happen to like it yourself, please don't belittle
it...
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Batch P
Hi Hanno
> Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] zope.component.zcml and global registry
>
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Roger wrote:
> > I like to use getGlobalSiteManager by default because this doesn't
> > force a database access and load the local site manager if
> the site is
> > a local site.
>
On Wednesday 03 March 2010, Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
> Any idea? Would you kill me if I propose to change the registration handler
> to use getSiteManager instead? :)
Mmh, I implemented z3c.baseregistry a long time ago, which allows you to
register components into arbitrary registries.
http://s
Hi Chris!
Chris Withers wrote:
> yuppie wrote:
>> I consider the self-contained scenario still as experimental.
>
> You might, I don't. I've deployed this happily in production with a few
> customer now.
>
> Just because you don't happen to like it yourself, please don't belittle
> it...
I didn'
* 2010-03-03 15:33, Stephan Richter wrote:
> Mmh, I implemented z3c.baseregistry a long time ago, which allows you to
> register components into arbitrary registries.
>
> http://svn.zope.org/z3c.baseregistry/trunk/src/z3c/baseregistry/README.txt?rev=107147&view=auto
Thanks for the link; z3c.baser
On Wednesday 03 March 2010, Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
> Thanks for the link; z3c.baseregistry depends on zope.site, which depends
> on a lot of packages we don't use, though.
I think you can make it easily zope.site independent.
> Also, I think my use case it quite different, because we don't use
* 2010-03-03 14:57, Roger wrote:
> If all kind of configuration directive processing is done before any kind
> of DB root access and relevant event handling (e.g. site hook setup) this
> seems fine to me. If not, then we run into troubles with the changes.
I've tried the patch running the whole zt
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:20 AM, Christian Theune wrote:
> Morning,
>
> On 03/02/2010 07:09 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> > Chris McDonough suggests to ponder further structuring of the ZTK into
>> > separate sub-sets which might allow us to get better mileage regarding
>> > main
Hello,
I ran into problems when I was trying to hide a widget for a radio
button inside a z3c.form (or plone.z3cform):
ComponentLookupError: (
(,
http://localhost:9080/test/comment_form>,
,
,
),
,
'hidden')
Full code: http://pastie.org/851816
I got a com
On Wednesday 03 March 2010, Timo Stollenwerk wrote:
> I have the necessary permissions for the Zope SVN. Though, I'm not sure
> about the best way to do this. Shall I start a branch of the existing
> z3c.form 1.9 branch or fix this in the trunk and merge it into the 1.9
> branch afterwards?
>
> I
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 12:06:22PM +0200, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> Marius Gedminas
> now wondering if his humorous deadpan PEP-8 review of pseudocode will be
> considered positive or negative...
I, for one, have always thought them positive and read them eagerly.
But, then you've never reviewed o
Hi,
On 03/03/2010 04:56 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:20 AM, Christian Theune wrote:
>> Morning,
>>
>> On 03/02/2010 07:09 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>> > Chris McDonough suggests to ponder further structuring of the ZTK into
>>> > separate sub-sets which m
On 03/03/2010 06:58 PM, I cobbled the following sentence together:
> I think there is some relevant and important desire that Chris has which
> actually overlaps with some of thoughts I had lately: organizing the
> currently 65 packages into categories where larger chunks of packages
> make sense o
On 3/3/10 12:58 PM, Christian Theune wrote:
>
> I think there is some relevant and important desire that Chris has which
> actually overlaps with some of thoughts I had lately: organizing the
> currently 65 packages into categories where larger chunks of packages
> make sense of being used together
* 2010-03-03 19:59, Chris McDonough wrote:
> I think it would be useful to have a discussion about grouping some Zope
> bits along functional lines for marketing purposes. This is really
> independent of any discussion about the ZTK.
I wonder if calling zope.{interface,component,schema,configurat
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
> * 2010-03-03 19:59, Chris McDonough wrote:
>> I think it would be useful to have a discussion about grouping some Zope
>> bits along functional lines for marketing purposes. This is really
>> independent of any discussion about the ZTK.
On 3/3/10 2:06 PM, Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
> * 2010-03-03 19:59, Chris McDonough wrote:
>> I think it would be useful to have a discussion about grouping some Zope
>> bits along functional lines for marketing purposes. This is really
>> independent of any discussion about the ZTK.
>
> I wonder i
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
> On 3/3/10 12:58 PM, Christian Theune wrote:
...
> "There's no crying in software" really, how I feel is irrelevant. ;-)
Then why do you keep saying things like "You've both successfully
beaten any initiative out of me again" or saying yo
* 2010-03-03 20:41, Chris McDonough wrote:
> Why wouldn't that be worked out here? Is it because you just want the
> mechanics of such a project done elsewhere without having to see it
> talked about on this maillist? Or is it because you disagree that it
> should be done? Or... what?
The main
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
yuppie wrote:
> Tres Seaver wrote:
>> Chris Withers wrote:
>>> By all means, document virtualenv as an option, but blessing it as "the
>>> one true way" is a bit much...
>
> I'm also surprised that you propose to make this *the* recommended way.
>
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
> * 2010-03-03 14:57, Roger wrote:
>> If all kind of configuration directive processing is done before any kind
>> of DB root access and relevant event handling (e.g. site hook setup) this
>> seems fine to me. If not, then we
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
> * 2010-03-03 20:41, Chris McDonough wrote:
>> Why wouldn't that be worked out here? Is it because you just want the
>> mechanics of such a project done elsewhere without having to see it
>> talked about on this maillist? Or is it becaus
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 20:06, Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
> I wonder if calling zope.{interface,component,schema,configuration,event}
> the "bicycle repair kit" (note the absence of the word "zope"), with
> explicit documentation and a dedicated website really need the approval of
> the whole zope3
On 03/03/2010 09:43 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
>> * 2010-03-03 20:41, Chris McDonough wrote:
>>> Why wouldn't that be worked out here? Is it because you just want the
>>> mechanics of such a project done elsewhere without having to see it
>>>
On 03/03/2010 09:27 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
>
> The self-contained mode is likely *perfect* for developers who produce a
> highly-customized bundle o Zope, 3rd party software, and custom code.
> It just isn't right as the "first choice" for somebody installing Zope
> for the first time.
I never con
* 2010-03-03 21:44, Jim Fulton wrote:
> The ZTK was created in part to deal with instability issues arising from
> people working on parts without testing the whole.
I suppose everybody here agrees that any change to a package which is part
of the ZTK *must* be tested against the whole ZTK. It wou
41 matches
Mail list logo
