Brian Lloyd wrote:
I don't have a good answer for you, though I tend to agree with
you that some things just don't want to be accessed outside of
some larger context. I'd like to hear some different viewpoints
on how people think something like this should work...
What the difference
Brian Lloyd wrote:
Yes you could, except that you would also make them inaccessible
from DTML (or from anywhere else) for the same class of users.
Is it really acceptable that in order to use dtml-in objectIds
on a page that needs to be accessible to anonymous users that I
must grant
Paul Everitt wrote:
I can add a bit more background on the decision to have the API docs not
rendered from the source.
First, Zope used to have an online help system that inspected the source
and rendered documenation on the fly. Very nice indeed. But we yanked
it.
Why? The most
Kevin Dangoor wrote:
Thanks for getting this document going. It's good to see where XML is
going in Zope.
[note that the zope-xml list may be a better list to discuss these things;
I've cc-ed to there but we might want to move the thread there
completely]
I do have a question,
Thomas Weholt wrote:
Have anybody compared Zope to Roxen? Midgard? Or similar products? I saw
Roxen had document revision system, a thing I "reported missing" earlier in
this list.
While Zope may not have that, it does have versions and undo. More
version control facilities would indeed be
Hi there,
We've been experiencing some odd interactions between the ZCatalog and
acquisition. Inside the dtml-in catalog .. tags things seem to go
screwy. It's picking up the properties in the root folder instead of
in the subfolder (the context), where the dtml-in catalog .. is used. Why
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Martijn Faassen writes:
[snip acquisition 'problem' with the catalog]
I can understand that the result is not what one wants, but
when I understand aquisition correct, it is in accordance
with the documentation.
Yes, after some more pondering and some experimentation
Hi there,
I see that the 2.2 still has this annoying, and seemingly completely
unnecessary minor change in the tab order:
Tabs for folder in 2.1:
Contents View Properties Import/Export Security Undo Find
Tabs for folder in 2.2:
Contents Import/Export Properties View Find Security Undo
Toby Dickenson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 11:27:33 -0400 (EDT), Ken Manheimer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Not sure that will scale, but creating new lists for each proposal
definitely won't scale.
I dont see this as a problem: You only create a new list when the
traffic for that proposal
Chris Withers wrote:
[snip]
Sometimes, it'll just sit there redirecting back to the css page infinitely..
yum :-S
Yeah, I've seen that kind of weirdness show up too occasionally; some kind
of infinite css getting loop in Netscape. A couple of times I've seen it
blow up the server logs; I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've just updated to 2.3.0 release using CVS. My CSS serving has
subsequently broken. The CSS serving worked fine with the CVS code from
2.3.0b2. I didn't get to check b3 - we had a public holiday on Friday and
that meant that the one working day assigned to the b3
Hi there,
Type marshalling is seriously broken in ZSQL methods. The bug is a bit
subtle, though. There are reports of this in the collector almost a month
old, and the severity of this bug is pretty high (could seriously disrupt Zope
upgrades to recent versions which apparently have this bug; I
[browsing through old versions of Zope]
I can't find any code that's supposed to do this in old versions of
Zope either. (I may be missing something, though)
If this feature was never there, I'd consider the ZSQL documentation
(for instance in the Zope help) to be quite broken however.
Rene Pijlman wrote:
On 10 Jul 2001 08:06:42 +0200, you wrote:
| How about treating some of the most critically needed Zope modules
| as a community project?
I agree totally.
So what do you think are the most needed Zope products?
Form tools! :)
Uhmm. Check. Feel free to join the
Hi there,
There appears to be a bug in Zope 2.4.1's OFS/Traversable.py. I've tried
to identify the same bug in the CVS, but oddly enough I couldn't find it.
There doesn't appear to be any Zope 2.4.1 CVS branch and the Zope 2.4
branch didn't have any changes to this file in 3 months, but doesn't
Paul Everitt wrote:
At last, the announcement I've been dying to make. After much
deliberation -- meaning, I've procrastinated for too long :^) -- I'm
pleased to announce our approach for opening the CVS repository to
community checkins.
Cool, at last!
Jay, Dylan wrote:
[snip]
Also in my searches I came across lots of references to something called
ZTables. This seems to be a Catalog with a UI that is about lots of tabular
information (rather than a ZCatalog which is specialized to replicating and
indexing existing objects). Is this dead?
Hannu Krosing wrote:
Andy McKay wrote:
Is out and:
Large file support is now enabled on Win32 and Win64 platforms, and
automatically configured (at least on Linux and Solaris).
Cool, that will mean there will be less worries about Zope users hitting the
2 gig limit.
But
Andy wrote:
You seem to be aware of the fact, but I'd like to point it out
explicitely: from a security point of view, this is completely useless.
As HTML stripping is often done for security reasons, I fail to see the
interest in such a feature.
That depends where you do the checking,
Brad Clements wrote:
I'm still casting around for a suggestion on where I can go to fix this.
I have a ParsedXML object in the methods list of a ZClass Product.
The Access Contents Information Permission Mapping always get's reset to blank
in
the ParsedXML object when Zope restarts.
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
P.S. Speaking of naming, I still dislike feature as a term for interface
implementations; various suggestions available on the Feature page of the
ComponentArchitecture Wiki. :)
I agree. I still much prefer 'adaptor' and I don't buy the
'adaptors sound too much like
Chris McDonough wrote:
The other thing is that
the core coders at Zope Corp snip are the only ones that can get
around the
fishbowl if they so desire.
Here! Here!
Not really. I couldn't, at least.
You guys can use the fishbowl as what is in effect an announcement
service. I'm
Chris McDonough wrote:
There really is a lot more work that goes into the stuff in the
fishbowl from the folks at ZC than just an announcement
Exactly. But in the end, if nobody responds except internally at ZC,
and you implement it, the fishbowl stuff is kind of an announcement,
right? And
Chris Withers wrote:
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
I personally would like to see ZPT support plain text at some point, and it
already has some of the things necessary to do it. But that's a separate
issue from Zope 3X or Zope 3 itself.
It already can:
dummy tal:omit-tag=
Andreas Jung wrote:
[snip]
On Tue, 2001-12-04 at 11:38, Chris Withers wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
If people agree, I will go through the Zope 3 CVS and change all
references
from Feature to Adaptor. :)
Please try to avoid crossposts over zope-dev and zope3-dev.
Apologies
Chris Withers wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
a mailing list, are needed at least to get contributors going. I had
to ask about releasing ParsedXML several times until I got some kind of
'aye' out of anyone. And it still wasn't clear. I shouldn't have to
be that persistent.
Well
Ulrich Eck wrote:
Hi out there :)
How would you do repeating texts or conditional texts like this? I mean,
perhaps it's obvious; I haven't played enough with ZPT yet.
Just for your info:
there is one product that tries to address this problem: TERRY
Matthew T. Kromer wrote:
[snip]
Actually, I was kind of hoping Martijn Faassen would pipe up and say I
applied the restricted python patches you've already put up on the
Zope-2_4-branch, and my problems with ParsedXML went away! since he's
one of the folks that did NOT benefit from
Leonardo Rochael Almeida wrote:
On Tue, 2001-12-18 at 13:44, Matthew T. Kromer wrote:
Soo... if shutting off GC extends time between crashes for some folks
from every 15 minutes to 3 times a day, my advise is to shut off GC.
Now I can really confirm that gc.disable() is enough to avoid
Hi there,
I have some issues with using declareProtected() outside product
classes (deriving from ObjectManager or SimpleItem). An external method
example that _does_ work, taken from the ZDG:
import Globals
import Acquisition
from AccessControl import ClassSecurityInfo
class
Dieter Maurer wrote:
[snip]
Now replace the line security.declarePublic('getTitle') with something like
security.declareProtected('View', 'getTitle'), and suddenly nobody is
allowed to call getTitle() on a Book object anymore.
You must acquistion wrap your book objects. Otherwise,
Chris Withers wrote:
seb bacon wrote:
It wouldn't surprise me - ZPT has the roughly the same overheads as DTML
for the language parsing, but a presentation template goes through an
HTML parser in addition - which is always going to be quite slow in
python.
IIRC, The HTML Parser is
Hey,
I'm running into a weird problem I'm not sure how to tackle. I've
noticed that under some circumstances it takes a long time to copy
and paste a ParsedXML object. This seems to happen in a clean Zope,
at least in the Zope root, though it doesn't seem to happen in folders.
I've also had it
Hi again,
Another data point. Copy paste of ParsedXML documents is normal
and fast when the object is in a folder not surrounded by too
many other folders (or objects in general, not sure yet). If I create
a bunch of very large folders sitting next to the ParsedXML document
that I'm going to
Gary Poster wrote:
So, um, Stephan, any ideas? :-) I know you are busy, but are you
interested in getting this in 2.6? I could help with testing as before, but
I'd prefer to have you signed on as the primary resource.
I don't know OrderedFolder very well but it'd be very useful in several
Frank Tegtmeyer wrote:
Brian Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We are trying to get to the bottom of a few straggling
instability reports, so we're planning to go ahead with
I started with 2.5.1b1 today and have problems with our one central
index_html approach.
That would be really
Hey,
Belated response, but..
Jim Fulton wrote:
Speaking of Zope 2.8, Jeremy Hylton has suggested that, perhaps, Zope 2.8
should be a release that provides *only*:
- New-style ExtensionClass, and
- ZODB 3.3, featuring multi-version concurrency control,
plus any features that have been
Jim Fulton wrote:
See:
Packages3/Interface in CVS
If you put this ahead of the Zope 2 Interface package in
your Python path, then you can use Zope 3 interfaces with Zope 2.
That's great news!
Is it the intention that this will be the default Interface package
in Zope 2.8 then, or is
Jim Fulton wrote:
Steve Alexander and I will be hosting a sprint in Fredericksburg
January 12-14, 2004:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/SteveVisitingFredericksburgSprint
A possible topic is Zope 2 to Zope 3 transition and working on
Zope 2.9.
Before independent discussions erupt here, see
Hi there,
Some changes in Zope 2.7 break the possibility to make management_page_charset
a callable (for instance a method).
This breaks Formulator, as it uses this facility. This works just fine
in Zope 2.6, but breaks in Zope 2.7.
The silly thing is that Formulator 2.6.0 breaks in Zope 2.7
Brian Lloyd wrote:
I forward-ported these to the 2.7 branch the head. Any testing
you can do to make sure I didn't break anything would be appreciated.
I'm having trouble understanding what you forward-ported and what you'd
like me to test. As far as I can determine
Brian Lloyd wrote:
I forward-ported these to the 2.7 branch the head. Any testing
you can do to make sure I didn't break anything would be appreciated.
Now I understand that you were responding to these messages:
I think the problem is same as reported by Kazuya Fukamachi
Hajime Nakagami wrote:
Hi
Sorry I have not execute Zope 2.7 or HEAD now.
But I think needs not only the patch,
http://cvs.zope.org/Zope/lib/python/OFS/dtml/properties.dtml.diff?r1=1.14r2=1.15
but also below
[patch to properties.dtml]
To repeat: patching properties.dtml will never be able
Brian Lloyd wrote:
I was trying to be responsive to getting the issue resolved, since
I'd like to make a (hopefully final) beta of 2.7 of Friday. I'll be
happy to check in (or have you check in) whatever fixes are needed
to give you the flexibility you need so long as it is b/w compatible,
Santi Camps wrote:
My problem is that the adapter object, and also the adapted object
contained in it, are out of publisher context or something like this.
For instance, absolute_url() methods doesn't work becouse REQUEST is not
defined.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean; I don't
Santi Camps wrote:
Very interesting. That's what I was looking for. I will try to extract
this mechanism from CMF.
Silva has co-evolved (some of it inspired directly by CMF, some by Zope 3)
much of the same infrastructure. Our view system is quite different,
and some large changes to it in
Leonardo Rochael Almeida wrote:
Acquisition is very powerful, and very magic at the same time.
Adapters is Zope3 way of implementing Acquisition in a less
surprising way.
The main drawback of acquisition, which is a drawback in general of
Zope 2, is that namespaces get conflated.
Zope 2 is
Santi Camps wrote:
Thats very interesting !! I was rewriting __getattr__ to allow the
adapter access adapted object attributes, but doing this way its clear
and easier. Inheriting from Acquisition Implicit and applying the
adapter using __of__ I obtain the same result and have less problems.
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn's suggestion was to use an alternate name for the
__implements__ attribute. I suppost I could do that -- call mine
__narya_interfaces__, but that sounds ugly. In particular, I
don't really want my interfaces module to actually *conflict* with
Zope's.
As I mentioned
Tres Seaver wrote:
Here is an excerpt from the 'runzope' I use for FrankenZope sites
(that is our affectionate name for that Interface package):
[snip script]
Thanks! I'll try this one out.
Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL
Shane Hathaway wrote:
There certainly ought to be a way to create an unrestricted
PageTemplateFile, though it should be an explicit step.
That is a good suggestion. I'd like that option. It would also be a
potential performance benefit.
On the other hand, in situations where the PageTemplate
Jamie Heilman wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Shane Hathaway wrote:
There certainly ought to be a way to create an unrestricted
PageTemplateFile, though it should be an explicit step.
That is a good suggestion. I'd like that option. It would also be a
potential performance benefit.
On the other
Dario Lopez-Ksten wrote:
Jamie Heilman wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
On the other hand, in situations where the PageTemplate designers are
*not* security conscious (they're designers, not primarily
programmers) the option of explicit checks is useful.
PageTemplateFile is a class used
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 15 April 2004 11:39, Casey Duncan wrote:
Additionally (and Jim and I have discussed this amongst ourselves) I
feel strongly that the dependancies should be enforced by tests. That
is, if you introduce and errant dependancy (by adding an import to a new
package
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 15 April 2004 13:22, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Note that for checking dependencies in Python code I still think this
tool could be improved by using technology from importchecker.py
http://cvs.zope.org/Zope3/utilities/importchecker.py
which can use Python's
Fred Drake wrote:
On Thursday 15 April 2004 13:22, Martijn Faassen wrote:
If somebody lets me know which API they want implemented for retrieving
imports (and use of imports) I could do this lifting work myself.
I'm not sure simply re-implementing one of the finddeps.py internal interfaces
Jim Fulton wrote:
I'm surprised to read this. Could you be more specific about your concerns?
Did you read Andreas Jung's mail? He was pretty specific, but I had to
hunt around as in my mailreader his reply had broken the thread.
Regards,
Martijn
___
Casey Duncan wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 11:36:31 +0200
Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- very few people are willing to contribute to documentation
On a bright note, I think zopewiki.org could change that. It *greatly*
lowers the bar on contributing substantive docs for Zope. I would
Hey there,
I understand from:
http://dev.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Projects/Zope2.8/MilestonePlan
Zope 2.8 is now planned for june. If Zope 2.8 is indeed released by june
this could fit fairly well with my own (also delayed :) plans for using
this facility in Silva. The obvious area I could try
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
I'm surprised to read this. Could you be more specific about your
concerns?
Did you read Andreas Jung's mail? He was pretty specific, but I had to
hunt around as in my mailreader his reply had broken the thread.
I was responding
Jim Fulton wrote:
Have interfaces stabilized enough to start this work, or should I wait
until next month (may is indicated on the planning).
I think so.
You think I can start now or you think I should wait? :)
What steps need to be taken concretely before such integration is
considered
Jim Fulton wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
this could fit fairly well with my own (also delayed :) plans for
using this facility in Silva. The obvious area I could try to
contribute is in integrating Zope 3 interfaces in Zope 2.
I meant to mention that Kapil has offered to work on this.
I suggest you
Lennart Regebro wrote:
A lot of the things that are CMF should have been put into Zope core.
Agreed, that'd been a lot better. The CMF is a framework. It'd be nicer
if it'd been a set of independent components. Then Silva (for instance)
could've used more of what's in the CMF than is possible
Jim Fulton wrote:
[decouple interface implementation]
*falls into a dead faint* *wakes up and starts bouncing around*
*Loud cheering!*
Awesome, thanks, Jim! A good start of my working week, too.
*cough* *regains composure* *ahum*
+1
Regards,
Martijn
Jim Fulton wrote:
Historically, we've had Packages, Products, Packages3 and Products3
directories in the CBS repository. I wonder of we need these going
forward. Perhaps we should just have top-level projct directories
in the new subversion repository.
I think having a distinction between Zope 2
Tim Peters wrote:
I read some subversion docs over the weekend, and so am sufficiently
prepared to live with the oddities of a standard subversion layout. I
think that if you make a non-standard layout, then everyone coming to, or
going from, Zope from/to other subversion projects will be forever
Bjorn Stabell wrote:
Formulator:
* gets charset from manage_page_charset (same as ZMI), but can be overridden
* stores field values as encoded text (not Unicode), but lets you specify
which encoding to use
(confusingly calls this unicode mode)
* messages are stored as UTF-8 (hardcoded)
While
David Convent wrote:
Hi Bjorn,
I always believed that unicode and utf-8 were same encoding, but reading
you let me think i was wrong.
Can you tell me what the difference is between unicode and utf-8 ?
Unicode should not be seen as an encoding as such. While Python
internally uses an encoding
Kapil Thangavelu wrote:
sigh.. debating over what the book says isn't very productive. my
conclusions at the end of my previous email, namely that what this
layout will accomplish for the zopeorg repository in terms of avoiding
renames of checkouts will likely be fairly limited in pratice, still
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote at 2004-5-21 15:09 -0400:
...
I have not yet found exactly how Formulator triggers a commit,
but it is definitely something called by its initialize() function.
It is probably trying to do the Right Thing (TM) by registering with the
help system. The fact
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 09:50:31AM +0200, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Yup, it's the help system.
This is very odd. Did you see the message I sent
to formulator-dev a few days ago?
No, sorry, just taking a look at it.
I spent some time tracing
the source of the ReadOnlyErrors
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 06:55:02PM +0200, Dieter Maurer wrote:
Content-Description: message body and .signature
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2004-5-24 09:50 +0200:
...
I know this has been reported before but I haven't looked into it yet.
I'm wondering how to handle Formulator
Tim Peters wrote:
[Martijn Faassen]
...
I'm not sure whether the patch ever could've worked. Firstly, the rich
comparison operations were never called; I think perhaps due to some
limitation in ExtenionClass.
ExtensionClass doesn't play well with many newer Python class features.
Rich comparisons
Paul Winkler wrote:
The fix is in the latest Formulator CVS; Paul, please test it if you can
and let me know if you still see the untowards behavior.
It seems good, thanks!!
Great! Thanks everybody!
Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
I chose alternative 4 from:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/RenameTheZopePackage
As that seemed to be the most popular, although I personnally prefer
3.
Resolving this peacefully is becoming more urgent for me as I'd
like to be able to use Five (Zope 3 on Zope 2
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
So what does this mean for Five on Windows?
It means that you should tell people to put zope in
a different directory than Zope. Both of these directories need
to be on the Python path.
Hm, that's not a big deal then. I'm just at a loss how this would
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
I don't understand what this means. A different directory on the python
path?
I would recommend leaving old Zope2 stuff in lib/python and putting all
Z3-related stuff in a parallel directory called 'src'. That way you can
run a whole
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hm, that's not a big deal then. I'm just at a loss how this would fix
the case-insensitivity import problem on Windows; I think I'm missing
something.
Yes, you are. Python has no trouble importing two packages with names
differing only by case
Fred Drake wrote:
On Friday 04 June 2004 12:33 pm, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hm, that's not a big deal then. I'm just at a loss how this would fix
the case-insensitivity import problem on Windows; I think I'm missing
something.
Modern Windows is case-preserving, and Python uses that to get
Jim Fulton wrote:
Raphael Ritz wrote:
Thanks for this clairification, Jim.
Alan, does that address your concerns?
Any reasons left, not to adopt the five approach to Zope 3?
Just understand that the Five approach is still being developed, so there's
nothing to adopt yet. :) But I certainly
Jim Fulton wrote:
Can we please stop using this name in writing? It is funny, but not very
reassuring to outsiders. :)
What do we call this project then? :)
The Project-that-shall-not-be-named!
Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL
Janko Hauser wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
There's the 'approach' and the implementation. The approach is
fairly clear: a focus on baby steps to integrate into Zope 2.7. The
aim is to introduce as much as possible as make sense of Zope 3
facilities into Zope 2.
Besides ourself also Christian
Florent Guillaume wrote:
I'd like to revive this discussion about having events in the core.
Sidnei even mentionned getting them in Zope directly,
http://dev.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Proposals/IncludeEventsInCore
I'm all for it, and would really help many people.
It would be awesome if a minimal
Florent Guillaume wrote:
[snip]
Martijn asked important question:
If we backport Zope 3 events, what package will they live in?
How will this relate to Five? What other packages does this draw in
(zope.interface definitely)? Etc.
If we want that to work with Five and Zope 2.7, will there be
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 10:53:01AM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
snip
| I haven't decided
| which parts of Zope 3 should be included in Zope 2.8 and would like to
| get input. If you have suggestions on what to include or exclude,
| please respond here or on the z3-file list,
Jim Fulton wrote:
Paul Winkler wrote:
+1 on all of those from me. However, I will be satisfied with anything
that gets released as 2.8 sometime this year ;-)
Absolutely. The top priority, IMO, is getting 2.8 out as soon as
we can.
Excuse me, but it seems bizarre to me that *if* the top priority
Christian Heimes wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
Originally, I had intended not to include any Zope 3 packages until
Zope 2.9, however, Zope 2.8 has been delayed long enough that I think
it makes sense to include some parts of Zope 3 sooner. I also want
to use some of the Zope 3 persistent code support,
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Wednesday 02 February 2005 05:28, Chris Withers wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
That's only to make things more easily deployable. Right now the hard
part is however detaching Zope 3 stuff from its dependencies
Really? That's extremely disappointing :-(
The most important
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
...
Five has dependencies on zope.app, so to make Five use Zope 2.8
packages would require quite a bit of Zope 3 to be pulled in, or an
awful lot of work to prevent it from being pulled in.
I think Zope 3 is at a point where, if there are volunteers
Jim Fulton wrote:
Would it make sense to have Zope 2.8 include all of the packages
below other than zope.app and for Five to supply it's own zope.app?
It would make life harder for Five, and create more work for us, as we'd
have to worry about:
* shipping a zope.app ourselves (does it contain
Jim Fulton wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
[snip]
I'm leaning more towards realeasing 2,8 now, and skipping this
renaming thing alltogether. But then, I don't know your reason for
wanting to do it in Zope 2.8, which I expect is a really good one (it
usually is).
I want zope.interface and
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2005-2-2 19:09 +0100:
...
What other use cases are floating around?
The CMF user group would like to use Zope3's events and subscriptions to
make creation, deletion and modification interception more flexible.
Yes, those are definitely useful. I mean
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 04:57:00PM +0100, Christian Heimes wrote:
I really *love* to have Five and parts of ZopeX3 in Zope2 but I don't
like how it is happening. Zope 2.8 is starting to stablize and still
contains some critical bugs like the incompatibility with old style
BTrees and you are
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 07:31:51PM +0100, Christian Heimes wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[Could you point me to the issue or mail describing the old-style BTree
problem? I may have run into it under another name or something.]
http://zope.org/Collectors/Zope/1695
Persistent* were fixed
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:34:10AM -0500, Tim Peters wrote:
[Sidnei da Silva]
Humm... we are trying to push a Zope 2.8 beta out, do you have or know
of plans to use ZODB 3.4 with Zope 2.8?
Yes. Jim needs to fix ZClasses for 2.8 too. ZODB 3.4 requires some
Zope(3) features, like
Hey everybody,
We're wrapping up here at a very pleasant and productive Zope 2/3/Five
sprint here in Paris. We've accomplished quite a lot, and we'll let you
hear what this is in more detail soon.
We've spent a lot of time with Zope 2.8, integrating Zope X3.0 and
Five into it.
Our work is on
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 11:22:26AM -0500, Brian Lloyd wrote:
[snip]
- Zope 2.8 will include X3.0 (not X3.1)
- The Z3 developers will have *no* extra burden or
responsibility to support X3.0 beyond what they
would normally do in the normal course of maintaining
it for
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 05:42:05PM +0100, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On Freitag, 18. M?rz 2005 11:22 Uhr -0500 Brian Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
- In the next few days at most, after a few loose ends are
wrapped up, we'll ask Andreas to make a 2.8 beta 1 release.
While Jim still has
Andreas Jung wrote:
[snip]
I understand that Jim won't have time to do these until mid-april. Is
it absolutely impossible to ship a beta which is 'non optimized' or
something? I mean, we got Silva and Plone running on Zope 2.8..
A beta release should be feature-complete means it should contain
Andreas Jung wrote:
[snip]
My point is: we are adding a lot of new code to the Zope 2 core - it
does not matter if there is a tight or a loose coupling between Z2
and Z3 - and calling it beta.
[snip]
My fear is that we are running into the same release problems as with
the Plone 2.0 release
1 - 100 of 1101 matches
Mail list logo