Hedley Roos wrote:
> As for "standard" queries on a Plone site the typical folder contents
> query is a good example. The query will be fast unless it sorts on
> sortable_title (a ZCTextIndex) right? Not sure right now.
sortable_title is a field index and shouldn't be slower than any other
index
Hi Tres,
>> Index Name |Type |Avg Time |Calls/second
>> ==
>> object_implements|KeywordIndex |0.2172234| 4.6
>
> This is clearly not the same issue as the other KeywordIndexes: in
> fact, I am aston
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Godefroid Chapelle wrote:
>> Tres Seaver wrote:
>>
>>> As an aside / vent: the reason for the now-removed EXTERNALS.txt files
>>> was to keep the canonical information about the externals in a diffable
>>> file: why subversion can't do a proper diff on its own
Hi,
Is there any indication on when we'll see a 2.0 release of z3c.form?
We need a widget that's not in the 1.9 release, but is on trunk (for a
list with textline value type), and are wondering whether to roll our
own or wait for a new z3c.form release.
Martin
--
Author of `Professional Plon
All,
Yuppie asked a good question on zope-cmf today: Why doesn't Five support
the directive's 'permission' attribute? Or does it?
The underlying discussion is that CMF trunk has a traversal namespace
adapter for add forms, that looks up the actual view to render as a
named adapter on (context
Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I have just checked in work on a separate branch which removes all use
> of 'Globals' as an indirection for imports within the Zope2 core,
> restoring the module to its original purpose, which was to hold shared
> data (e.g.,
Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Stefan H. Holek wrote:
>> Log message for revision 94498:
>> Restore Products.Five.security.initializeClass.
>>
>> Changed:
>> U Zope/trunk/lib/python/Products/Five/security.py
>>
>> -=-
>> Modified: Zope/trunk/lib/pyth
Christian Theune wrote:
> I noticed 'zope.globalrequest' on the PyPI RSS feed today and wonder
> about it. IMHO this implements an anti-pattern in an official way
> without a warning that this needs to be handled with care.
First of all, I actually quite like this pattern. It's commonly used in
Benji York wrote:
>> And what about zope.agxassociation, zope.bforest, zope.bobo,
>> zope.generic, zope.ucol, zope.wfmc and zope.xmlpickle to name a few of
>> the more than 30 packages already in the zope.* namespace which are
>> neither part of any Zope release nor are likely to ever be?
>
> Som
Dieter Maurer wrote:
> Christian Theune wrote at 2009-1-16 09:06 +0100:
>> I noticed 'zope.globalrequest' on the PyPI RSS feed today and wonder
>> about it. IMHO this implements an anti-pattern in an official way
>> without a warning that this needs to be handled with care.
>
> IMHO, it is not an
Hi Martijn,
Without comparison otherwise, you may find my thoughts here useful:
http://www.martinaspeli.net/articles/granting-plone-an-api
> a) continue with the current extra dependencies situation like in
> zope.component, and in fact clean up other packages that define ZCML to
> declare ZCM
Laurent Mignon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> With the replacement of zope.app.component import with zope.site, it's
> no more possible to use z3c.form with Zope2 / Plone :-(
>
> In fact, zope.site require zope.container requiring ZODB3 :-(
Why can't you put these eggs into your Plone buildout? Are there ver
Chris Withers wrote:
> Andreas Jung wrote:
>> because of the failure of the new.zope.org project I would like to put
>> the hat on for reorganizing the Zope 2 presentation on zope.org.
>
> Is this failure official or is there just no action on this?
Let's say both.
I basically gave up trying to
Andreas Jung wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 20.02.2009 15:23 Uhr, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> I really hope someone provides the resources to create a microsite
>> instead of "the Zope 3 approach on wiki.zope.org". Grok is doing two
>> things: a Plone-based site wh
Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 05:14, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> The new.zope.org initiative died because no-one could write any content.
>> Even then 5-10 pages of content requires for a very basic microsite was
>> too much, and several separate calls fo
Andreas Jung wrote:
> I just checked new.zope.org and I think that your idea appears
> reasonable. The only thing I dislike about the new.zope.org design is
> the navigation tree at the bottom of the page. All other parts of the
> design could be re-used directly - perhaps with some slightly modif
Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 10:14, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> Please go make this happen if you can. It's very important. I can't anymore.
>
> As far as I can see, it's a question of
> - setting up a server, I would recommend a Plone site with
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On Feb 21, 2009, at 08:55 , Andreas Jung wrote:
>
>> - - are there any legal issues with the design & layout in case we
>> want to
>> make modifications? I know that the designer of new.zope.org theme
>> made some tr
Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 11:59, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> We
>
> Yes. But not *I*. And you asked if *I* could get it done. :) Perhaps
> you meant if I could nag people into doing it. I doubt that I could.
> I'm not good at making people do things
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,
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:
> 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?
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
Chris McDonough wrote:
> I'm pretty sure a steering group and a rebranding of existing software is not
> going to make us more effective. Here's what I believe would make us more
> effective:
First of all, I'm not sure what Martijn is saying is necessarily in
dichotomy with what you're saying,
Tres Seaver wrote:
> It is a nightmare, but not one which a KGS can really fix: sometimes
> your project needs its *own* KGS. Honestly, the only safe thing for
> anybody trying to support a large application in production is to run
> their own index, and do the gatekeeping of packages into it the
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> What is going to make us more effective is:
>
> * a recognition of current reality, i.e. the Zope Framework is not the
> same as the Zope 3 application server and it serves a far wider audience.
>
> * leadership
I really couldn't agree more. There's unfortunately a bit
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Lennart Regebro wrote:
> [snip]
>> Sure. But that doesn't mean a steering group is the right solution.
>
> Why not? What do you think is the right solution?
I wonder what Lennart's solution would be too... Taking a page out of
Plone's history:
> I can see a number of al
Stephan Richter wrote:
> On Monday 02 March 2009, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> Plone, by the way, had a similar problem, and solved it by creating "the
>> framework team". This is a rolling body of people who are responsible
>> for putting out calls for and reviewi
Chris McDonough wrote:
> Sure. We can be careful, grown-up, conservative, and all that. But I'll note
> that a) there just really aren't that many people using Zope 3 b) the people
> that *are* using Zope 3 by itself are capable of maintaining their own index
> c)
> the people who *aren't* capa
Chris McDonough wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I just realized the irony in this:
>>
>> [Martijn spends a lot of time in trying to solve problems in our
>> community, bothering to consult lots of people and writing up a document]
>>
>> [Chris]
>>> I'm pretty sure a steering gro
Lennart Regebro wrote:
>> I'm talking about a group of people who act as if they're responsible,
>> not your mythical committee. We should be able to find a bunch of people
>> with a sense of responsibility, right?
>
> Yes. But I don't think making them a steering group is going to help.
Just to
Martijn Pieters wrote:
> Would it be possible to focus this discussion around clearer lines?
> Create counter proposals if you have to, discuss things on their
> merits, but if you cannot add more than a vague +1 and -1, please
> refrain.
I think that would be easier if we had a shorter proposal.
Tres Seaver wrote:
>> Plone, by the way, had a similar problem, and solved it by creating "the
>> framework team". This is a rolling body of people who are responsible
>> for putting out calls for and reviewing improvements proposals. They
>> basically report to the release manager, who makes t
Chris McDonough wrote:
> Sorry, the "you" above in "you scolded" was Martin Aspeli, not Faassen.
Note that the "scolding" had something to do with you breaking Plone
trunk due to a transitive change in Chameleon, and the realisation that
from this poi
Tres Seaver wrote:
> Different participants will report differently about the success, no
> doubt. One unexpected outcome (for some) was classifying the
> "decisions" taken at the PSPS as "advisory", "just talk", etc: having
> no force in governing the more "tactical" decisions.
I don't know wh
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Okay, I guess we do differ here. I think a leader can provide
> encouragement and stimulate people into action, point out interesting
> outstanding tasks, and make sure that people who are motivated actually
> get grip on improving the project and don't get discouraged.
Tres Seaver wrote:
> - - The branch kills off both the use of 'zope.deferredimport' and the
> 'bbb' subpackage, leaving something which could be used in Jython, or
> IronPython, or the GAE.
Why is zope.deferredimport a problem? Does it do something CPython
specific? As a small utility, I don
Paul Everitt wrote:
> When I read Martin's post, I had a similar reaction. Namely, that the
> convenience of the Uberthing (Plone in this case) will always trump the
> desire of packages trying to survive on their own for new audiences. At
> the time of the configuration scolding, I remember
Laurent Mignon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2 weeks ago, I've implemented a support for nested group into the
> branch svn://svn.zope.org/repos/main/z3c.form/branches/sagblmi-nestedgroup
>
> All test pass and no compatibility issue.
>
> Can I merge it to the trunk?
What's the use case for this?
Martin
-
Hi,
Sorry for doing this by email rather than unit test, but I'm a bit
over-stretched at the moment.
plone.z3cform has a backport of z3c.form trunk's TextLines widget
(when's that release coming, any ideas?).
In using it, I discovered that the converter (converter.py on z3c.form
trunk) does t
Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for doing this by email rather than unit test, but I'm a bit
> over-stretched at the moment.
>
> plone.z3cform has a backport of z3c.form trunk's TextLines widget
> (when's that release coming, any ideas?).
>
> In
Hi,
I'm writing a custom file widget for z3c.form that works like the
Archetypes file widget that Plone uses and the formlib widget in
collective.namedfile. That is, after you've uploaded a file once, you're
given a radio button to decide whether to upload a new file, or leave
the existing fil
Stephan Richter wrote:
> On Thursday 12 March 2009, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> I'm writing a custom file widget for z3c.form that works like the
>> Archetypes file widget that Plone uses and the formlib widget in
>> collective.namedfile. That is, after you've uploaded
Stephan Richter wrote:
> On Thursday 12 March 2009, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> Could I maybe create a custom validator that checks for a magic
>> constant? If so, how? I have both a custom field (in the zope.schema
>> sense) and a custom widget.
>
> Yeah. I could swear I
Dieter Maurer wrote:
> Hanno Schlichting wrote at 2009-3-15 11:10 +0100:
>> Dieter Maurer wrote:
>>> The Zope 2.12 documention tells that the "test" command was removed
>>> from "zopectl".
>>>
>>> "test" was a convenient way to test products and packages in the
>>> context of the instance. How is t
Andreas Jung wrote:
> As mentioned earlier: use buildout. easy_install support has no high
> priority right now.
Whilst I understand that we don't have the capacity to test all
different configurations now, I think it's a good principle to try to
avoid a 'hard' dependency on zc.buildout. If we
Andreas Jung wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 16.03.2009 1:17 Uhr, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> Andreas Jung wrote:
>>
>>> As mentioned earlier: use buildout. easy_install support has no high
>>> priority right now.
>> Whi
Hi,
I *think* this is a bug in zc.relationship, but I'm not quite sure.
I'm using ZODB3 3.8.1 (to get BLOB support) and trying to install
plone.app.relations, which depends on zc.relationship 1.0.2. In
particular, it subclasses zc.relationship.shared.Container, and stores
a zc.relationship.in
Gary Poster wrote:
> On Mar 16, 2009, at 4:02 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I *think* this is a bug in zc.relationship, but I'm not quite sure.
>>
>> I'm using ZODB3 3.8.1 (to get BLOB support) and trying to install
>> plone.app.r
Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Gary Poster wrote:
>> On Mar 16, 2009, at 4:02 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I *think* this is a bug in zc.relationship, but I'm not quite sure.
>>>
>>> I'm using ZODB3 3.8.1 (to get BLOB su
Hi Gary,
> zc.relationship 2.0 trunk is now essentially a wrapping of zc.relation
> code for backwards compatibility.
I see. But 2.0dev on pypi isn't?
What's the story behind zc.relation and the evolution of zc.relationship?
> You guys are the main clients for zc.relationship at this point, I
Hi Gary,
Thanks for being so helpful!
>> What's the difference between 1.1.1 and 2.0dev on pypi?
>
> I intended that 1.1.1 would simply make the absolutely minimal changes
> necessary for you to be able to use the 1.1 branch. It would not have
> any of the 2.x changes at all.
But we're say
Gary Poster wrote:
>> Hopefully. Do we know that zc.relationship 1.1 works with both ZODB
>> versions?
>
> That would be a significant point of its existence, so I certainly
> hope so. I'm 80%+ confident that it does, and would regard not
> supporting 3.7 as a bug that I'd be willing to fix.
Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Gary Poster wrote:
>
>>> Hopefully. Do we know that zc.relationship 1.1 works with both ZODB
>>> versions?
>> That would be a significant point of its existence, so I certainly
>> hope so. I'm 80%+ confident that it does, and woul
Gary Poster wrote:
> Yes, +1. Thank you. I was about to write to your other message that
> this was quite possibly the only 3.8 dependency.
Cool. Committed.
>> If we do that, then we can let plone.relations depend on
>> zc.relationship
>> 1.1.1 explicitly and have support for both ZODB ver
Stephan Richter wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 March 2009, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> If a package defines a *lot* of ZCML, we will have to wonder about the
>> purpose of the package (is this really a library-like package or more
>> like an application defining a UI or something?), and we'll have to
>> thin
Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On behalf of the Zope community, I am pleased to announce the creation
> of the "Zope 4.0" project. After extensive discussion with the Zope
> wizards in conclave at PyCon 2009, the new project's website has been
> launched:
Hi,
I'd like to add support for the following:
1) Provider decorator:
@provider(IFoo)
def some_function(context)
pass
This is an alternative to doing a separate alsoProvides() on the function.
2) An interfaceProvides directive:
class IFoo(Interface):
interfaceProvides(ISome
Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'd like to add support for the following:
>>
>> 1) Provider decorator:
>>
>> @provider(IFoo)
>> def some_function(contex
Hi Marius,
> It's a Python 2.6/3.0 feature:
Oh... sniff... I so want that. ;)
> from zope.component import adapter
> from zope.interface import implementer
>
> @adapter(IFoo)
> @implementer(IBar)
> class MyClass(object):
>
> def __init__(self, context):
>
Chris Rossi wrote:
> from zope.interface import Constant
>
> class IHttpResponse(Interface):
> """Models an HTTP 1.1 response.
> """
> HTTP_OK = Constant("200 Ok", "An HTTP Ok response.")
> HTTP_NOT_FOUND = Constant("404 Not Found", "An HTTP Not Found response")
>
> status =
Hi,
Today, I found a bug in ChoiceTerms: it will only bind the field if
field.vocabulary is None, which breaks uses of an IContextSourceBinder.
I thought to fix that in svn, but there's no 1.9.x branch, and 2.0
(trunk) is a very different beast.
Tracking 2.0 trunk is not an option right now. I
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Let's talk about Zope Classic and see whether renaming Zope 2 to that is
> a step we can realistically take in the near future. Who is in favor of
> that?
-100
"Zope 2" is an incredibly established name. It's been around forever.
Renaming something that has been out t
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Okay, in the interests of making this discussion go quickly, there has
> been enough negative feedback about renaming Zope 2 to think we have no
> realistic chance of renaming it.
>
> We are still stuck with the following perceived sequence:
>
> Zope 2, Zope 3
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> To stir things up: I would like to suggest renumbering the next Zope 2
> release to Zope 4. That reflects the large refactoring that is being
> done to clean up the codebase and fully eggify Zope. There are enough
> changes to warrant a new major version bump.
-100 again
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Shane Hathaway wrote:
>>
>>
>> Tres Seaver wrote:
>>> WRT the "Framework" name: "framework" is a misleading name for the
>>> collection of packages salvaged from the "new Coke" effort: it is
>>> actually a *bunch* of frameworks, in the classic software enginee
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>>
>>> To stir things up: I would like to suggest renumbering the next Zope 2
>>> release to Zope 4. That reflects the large refactoring that is being
>>> done to clean up
Hi,
I just tried to check out the new 1.9.x branch of z3c.form (thanks
Stephan!), but it won't build with Python 2.4 (I need this to work with
Plone, so 2.4 is a must):
$ ./bin/buildout
Develop: '/users/optilude/Development/Plone/Code/Products/z3c.form/.'
Unused options for buildout: 'zope-dire
Stephan Richter wrote:
> On Thursday 09 April 2009, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> Clearly, I'm getting too new a version of RestrictedPython, but this is
>> running against the 3.4 KGS, so I don't see how that could really happen.
>
> This is not a problem. Ignore tho
Adam GROSZER wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would add TEMPORARYLY (for testing) the KGS to buildout.cfg:
>
> [buildout]
> extends = http://download.zope.org/zope3.4/3.4.0/versions.cfg
> versions = versions
>
> develop = . benchmark
> parts = test checker coverage-test coverage-report docs i18n benchmark
Stephan Richter wrote:
> On Friday 10 April 2009, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> "/Users/optilude/.buildout/eggs/zope.container-3.8.1-py2.4-macosx-10.3-i386
>> .egg/zope/container/traversal.py", line 26, in ?
>> from zope.publisher.interfaces import IDefaultViewName,
Hi all,
For a while now, people have had to contend with two ways of doing
certain things, depending on whether the code they are working with is
in "Zope 2 land" or "Zope 3 land". We're getting closer to a world where
people don't need to be so intimately aware of the differences,
especially
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> So, here is what I'd like to propose, ideally for Zope 2.12:
>>
>> 1) Use an event handler to ensure that any declared in
>> ZCML actually creates a valid, Zope 2 permission. I have working code
>&g
Chris Withers wrote:
> Chris Withers wrote:
>> I've attached the buildout.cfg, zope.conf.in and zeo.conf.in I've been
>> using to this message.
>
> *sigh*, lets try that again...
>
> I should also point out that, until a new Zope2 egg is released, you'll
> need to have a Zope 2 trunk checkout a
Dieter Maurer wrote:
> Martin Aspeli wrote at 2009-4-12 18:31 +0800:
>>
>> Finally, there is not total parity between Zope 2 security and Zope 3
>> security. Zope 2 cannot protect 'property set', for example.
>
> Since Zope 2.8, Zope 2 could in prin
Martin Aspeli wrote:
I've now implemented 1 and 2 on trunk, since they seem pretty
non-controversial.
> 1) Use an event handler to ensure that any declared in
> ZCML actually creates a valid, Zope 2 permission. I have working code
> for this here which we could put in Prod
Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
> -1 from my standpoint. Two of my projects are fully based on the Zope 3
> server, and switching to something else would be quite some pain.
FWIW, I think you're absolutely right. We can't just declare it "dead"
because it is convenient to our goal of having clearer
Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>
>> I've not done this yet:
>>
>>> 3) Change the Permission class in AccessControl so that it tries to
>>> look up an IPermission utility and us
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> By now I count three people using Zope 3 for a small number of projects.
> But none of them seems to have the resources to continue the maintenance
> or future development of Zope 3.
Whilst you're absolutely right, just a word of warning: a lot of people
do not read ma
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Martin Aspeli wrote:
> [snip]
>> - In ZCML (or a grok.require() directive) use the Zope 3 name
>
> Grok also has a grok.Permission you can subclass, and those subclasses
> can also be passed to grok.require().
I know, but
Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> Log message for revision 99146:
>> Let the directive auto-register permissions that don't
>> exist already
>
> This kind of test is a "poster chi
Tres Seaver wrote:
> We aren't asking non-developer users for opinions: this is about how we
> allocate scarce resources (our time), and how to organized the branding
> such that *we* have a clear story to present. As is typical of open
> source projects, the only folks who get to vote are the o
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> If we want to do this right we need to come up with a good way to get
> the message out.
I think the only way you're going to manage to do that, is if you have a
website with a clear and unambiguous message on it.
It's like deja-vu all over again...
Martin
--
Autho
Rob Miller wrote:
> Gary Poster wrote:
>> This message seems like a reasonable start to me: "Zope 3 has become
>> focused on supporting frameworks and applications, rather than trying
>> to be one itself. It is now called the Zope Toolkit. Parts of it are
>> used by Zope 2, Plone, Grok, Re
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Martin Aspeli wrote:
> [snip]
>> I do realise that this derails Maritjn's focus slightly, but I don't
>> think we've lost the idea that there may be value in maintaining a
>> larger KGS.
>
> The whole id
Stephan Richter wrote:
> On Sunday 19 April 2009, Tres Seaver wrote:
>> -1. As a branding choice (as opposed to a technology), "Zope 3" *is* a
>> dead-end: it implies a strategy (replacing Zope 2) which we no longer
>> believe in. I think the consequences of the brand confusion are hard
>> for t
Hi,
First - a quick question: can we treat __name__ and id/getId()/_setId()
as the same, always? OFS.SimpleItem has some support for letting id and
name be the same, but the link is lost once both __name__ and id are
set. Why isn't __name__ just a property that reflects self.id ?
Then, the pro
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> What do people feel about dropping Python 2.4 support in the Zope
> Toolkit? I.e. new releases of packages in the Zope Toolkit (handwave
> vaguely as we *still* don't have a canonical list) only have to work in
> Python 2.5 (and preferably 2.6), not Python
Gary Poster wrote:
> I'm concerned about the state of the zc.buildout template recipes. I
> want one. I want some one-off files, specific to a certain project,
> for which writing a standalone recipe feels very heavy.
>
> Here are the template recipes I found:
>
> collective.recipe.template
Uli Fouquet wrote:
> In the beginning my code should go into collective.recipe.template
> itself (Wichert agreed), but I wasn't granted committer access to the
> collective repository yet. Of course I requested to be approval and
> waited for weeks, but nothing happened.
I'm sorry to hear that! I
Andreas Jung wrote:
> What would be disappointing?
To be unable to use new packages from an updated Zope Toolkit.
It may be that some (many?) packages won't work with Zope 2.10, but if
we get the kind of dependency isolation we're talking about, I'd wager
that quite a few packages would work i
Andreas Jung wrote:
> On 27.04.2009 17:07 Uhr, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> Andreas Jung wrote:
>>
>>
>>> What would be disappointing?
>>>
>> To be unable to use new packages from an updated Zope Toolkit.
>>
>> It may be that some (man
Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Tres Seaver wrote:
>> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>>
>>> The Plone 3.x series will stay on Python 2.4 for a long time yet, so
>>> this would be very disappointing. I can understand it if th
Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> Tres Seaver wrote:
>>> Thinking further on this: there is actually not much "shiny" about the
>>> ZTK: it is going to be equivalent to a cut-down, dep
Laurence Rowe wrote:
> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> First - a quick question: can we treat __name__ and id/getId()/_setId()
>> as the same, always? OFS.SimpleItem has some support for letting id and
>> name be the same, but the link is lost once both __nam
Hi folks,
I've written a small Google App Engine application to help manage and
publish buildout configuration that provide a known good [versions] block.
I'm not sure this approach is good, and the application is not well
tested, but it may be of interest to some people here.
http://good-py.a
Chris Withers wrote:
> plohn.
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> In order to get to a conclusion:
>>
>> I haven't seen convincing arguments yet *not* to drop the Python 2.4 for
>> new releases of the Zope Toolkit libraries.
>>
>> I'd like to phrase the debate in those terms instead of the reverse,
>>
Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:55, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> We've had some more discussions about this and the Plone release
>> schedule. The upshot is that if Zope 3/Toolkit drops Python 2.4 support,
>> it will effectively render it inaccessible t
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> As I pointed out, it is effectively inaccessible for Plone users anyway,
> as Zope 3 is already installed. You *cannot* mix Zope Toolkit and Zope 3
> libraries just like that and expect anything to work.
Why not? We upgrade Zope 3.3 packages to 3.4+ all the time to acce
1 - 100 of 474 matches
Mail list logo
