What my point is here is that your attitude about Zope 2 is wrong: as a
pure-play Zope 3 developer you *should* care about Zope 2.
Some of us have been doing quite a bit of work of bringing Zope 3 to the
Zope 2 world. I believe that at least partially as a result of this,
Zope 3 is getting
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 21:28:09 -, Stephan Richter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have spent the last two weeks working on a proposal that defines a Zope
Software Certification Program (ZSCP) and a Common Repository that
implements
this process. The proposal is attached to this mail. I welcome
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 19:31:38 -, Stefane Fermigier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Strange how (most of) the Plone people seem to be so quick in willing to
sacrifice the Zope brand :(
I don't think that's true. I'm certainly not, and I've not heard anyone
directly in favour of that either. What
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 16:18:27 -, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Zope is a agile flexible extensible app server with rich services.
You forgot Enterprise.
Martin
--
(muted)
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
Lennart Regebro-2 wrote:
Well, CMFonFive uses zope.app.publisher.browser, because that's where
the menus hang.
We would like to start using browser menus in Plone
CPS uses zope.app.container for the container events and the IAdding
interface all over the place.
We may want to
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 15:42:34 +0100, whit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
to echo Martijn, I've learned much more about zope3 thumbing through the
z3 bundled with Zope 2 than I have looking at actual zope3 source,
because I don't have a job that pays me to do pure zope3.
I would argue sending the
Max M wrote:
Refresh no longer works, and the old debug, correct, restart cycle is
back.
Only this time a software stack the size a skyscrapers has to be loaded.
Making it even slower than in the old Zope days.
There are a few answers to this question
- Get a better machine. :)
Sidnei da Silva-2 wrote:
Since I'm going to be building the installer for Windows I would like
to quickly ask if anyone expects multiple Zope installs to live
side-by-side. The existing installer atempted that but I don't believe
it was very successful.
I would like to know if anyone
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey,
I only caught this message earlier today, but this is really cool! It's
really nice to see some zope 2 recipes and I hope they indeed will end
up on svn.zope.org soon!
Your workingenv recipe sounds very interesting and I should try this
soon. Does it allow
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey,
I only caught this message earlier today, but this is really cool! It's
really nice to see some zope 2 recipes and I hope they indeed will end
up on svn.zope.org soon!
Your workingenv recipe sounds very interesting and I should try this
soon. Does it allow
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
For their upcoming versions, Zope 2 consuming platforms such as Plone
are creating standard Zope3-style Python packages while still having
Zope 2 products around. This proposal aims at unifying the deployment
of products and Python packages into a Zope 2
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
This proposal aims at bringing Zope 2 a bit closer to Zope 3 by making
the widely used Acquisition API aware of Zope 3's __parent__ pointers.
This will alleviate the need of using Acquisition base classes in Zope 2
for every security-sensitive object,
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
The point is that buildout *already* handles eggs. There's really no
point for having an extra layer on top of buildout. The zc.recipe.egg
recipe can install any egg (as a development one or not) in an automated
fashion, which is exactly what you'd want from a
Rob Miller wrote:
honestly, it seems to me that buildout tries to do too much. it's trying to
handle both repeatable deployment recipes AND providing a sandbox within which
to run things. there may not be a point to having an extra layer on top of
buildout, but buildout sure does seem to me
Tres Seaver wrote:
I don't think buildout's default locations would be called sensible by
anybody except the folks who wrote it.
I think a lot of this may have to do with sensible defaults; most (all?)
of this is settable via options in buildout.cfg, which is reassuring at
least.
Here
I don't have a usecase for executing the scripts with any python
interpeter other than the one which ran setuptools to generate them, and
therefore don't care for the hard-wired path manipulation
I would agree that having to mangle multiple scripts is annoying. On the
other hand, I find the
Jim Fulton wrote:
The first step to compatibility is deciding what it means. :)
I'm all in favor of workingenv/buildout compatibility.
I'd like to see some specifics of how people would like
to use workingenv amd buildout together. I have some guesses,
but I'd rather hear people say what they
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
The first step to compatibility is deciding what it means. :)
I'm all in favor of workingenv/buildout compatibility.
I'd like to see some specifics of how people would like
to use workingenv amd buildout together. I have some guesses
Jim Fulton wrote:
[foo]
recipe=zc.recipe.egg
eggs = egg1 egg2 ...
interpreter = mypy
extra-paths = path-to-your-instance/lib/python
scripts = mypy
This is great :) I used eggs = ${instance:eggs} to make sure it has the
same eggs as our Zope instance, seems to
Daniel Nouri-3 wrote:
BTW, compare the difference in size between that script[1] and
ploneout[2]. I should mention that it does less than ploneout (it
doesn't download Zope 2, but that'd be trivial to add) and it could be
argued that it's less flexible for some definition of flexible.
Dieter Maurer wrote:
I have no problems to donate AdvancedQuery and/or Managable Index
to the Zope Foundation
That's great, thank you! :)
*BUT* I will not modify the code to bring
it in line with the different style requirements usually applied
to Zope components: e.g.
* my code uses 2
yuppie wrote:
- Should we add new products to the core? I thought we want to move away
from products and use python packages instead. The AdvancedQuery code
might become part of the ZCatalog package, ManagableIndex might be
converted to a non-products package.
There are hardly new, though,
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Whit (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) reported that AdvancedQuery
is going to ship with Plone3 and that packaging would be easier for them if
AdvancedQuery were part of the Zope 2 distribution.
I fail to find an explanation *why* that is.
I'm
Ian Bicking wrote:
One of the things that I think is pretty easy with workingenv, and a bit
confusing with buildout, is moving one package into development. In
workingenv you get the package you want (however you do that -- check
out a branch, make your own local repository, unpack a
Chris Withers wrote:
Hi All,
Wondering if someone could tell me the difference between an OOSet and
an OOTreeSet?
They seem to have different interfaces and yet seem to be used in
similar circumstances in PluginIndexes/common/UnIndex.py...
I'm looking for a set-like data
Chris Withers wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
I'll bet one is backed by a hashtable and the other is backed by an r/b
tree, meaning the Set is O(1) lookups, possibly a bit less space
efficient
and non-ordered,
Well, Set's are definitely ordered, same as normal python sets...
From
Christian Theune-2 wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 07.03.2007, 14:01 -0300 schrieb Sidnei da Silva:
What exactly do you mean by 'link'? As in 'soft links'? The uploaded
file usually is a temporary file, so you are saying you would create a
soft link on the 'blobs' directory to a file in the $TMP
Christopher Lozinski wrote:
I thought, hey, I bet a million people need such a simple web app. Let
us make it really easy to implement craigslist or better. Let me go
ahead and create a ZClass product, and go ahead and distribute it. Lots
of people would use it. Or at least enough to
Christopher Lozinski wrote:
1. There is no demand for a through the web development environment that
works.
I just don't believe that.
There is demand for TTW *customisation*, as we have in CMF/Plone with
the portal_skins mechanism, for example. Developing entire systems
through a web
Christopher Lozinski wrote:
I think I have figured out how to do it. This looks like a ZMI based
ZClass, you can define it through the ZMI, you can add instance
variables, you can add instance methods, all through the ZMI, but you
can change inheritance, because it is really a product
Christopher Lozinski wrote:
For those who have not been following this thread, here is the
proposal. http://wiki.zope.org/zope2/ZClassesNG
Can you please not start a new thread for every turn of this
conversation? 8 of the last 9 threads are by you on this exact issue.
Last night I
Chris Withers wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Plone development with Archetypes is not painful. Hundreds of developers
do it, so it can't be that bad.
Urm, that's not true. Archetypes is the single most painful component to
use from Plone...
It's also the biggest source
Andreas Jung-5 wrote:
Okay. Let me rephrase. Most people don't find it painful, and a huge
number of developers are being very productive with Archetypes. I know
you hate it Chris, but you are in the minority.
I have to second that. The latest versions of AT are pretty much stable
and
Tres Seaver wrote:
AT has the classic Z-shaped curve in spades: when it does what you
want, it is great, but trying to get it to do something else is painful
and frustrating.
I don't agree all that often with Chris W, but I find Archetypes an
extremely frustrating framework to work
From people's comments, here and on the archetypes mailing list, I am
pretty convinced that there is support for a through the web editing
environment, even from Alexander Limi, expert on human interfaces and
co-author of Plone.
You have an incredibly annoying tendency to take the words of
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
At the moment my options seem to be to not use buildout or modifying
setup.py in zope.sendmail to remove all its declared dependencies.
More like not to use setuptools, i.e. any egg-based solution would
have the same problem (e.g. workingenv).
You can probably check
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Hi,
as some of you may have noticed I worked a bit more on philikon's branch
which makes Acquisition and in return the Zope2 security machinery aware
of __parent__ pointers.
The branch can be found here:
Andreas Zeidler wrote:
hi,
imho i've found a vulnerability in zope 2.10.4 or rather in the newer
version of five (1.5.5) used by it. in `Five/browser/
pagetemplatefile.py` in line 27 `createTrustedZopeEngine` is used the
instantiate the page template engine used by five templates, or at
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Laurence Rowe wrote:
Quite a lot of zope3 code (zc.datetimewidget for instance) expects to be
able to access request.locale. ZPublisher does not provide this and to
get around the limitation you must manually set request.locale in your
view using
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
Hi there,
Not sure this is the right list, but let's give it a try.
I would like to use the 'patches' functionality from zc.recipe.cmmi
together with other recipes. I believe this is useful functionality
and is interesting to all sorts of recipes, not only to cmmi-based
Dieter Maurer wrote:
During our latest discussion to put my most important Zope2 products
into a public repository, I have promissed to publish them on
PyPI instead. Yesterday, I started work to fulfill this promiss
and carefully read the PyPI related documentation -- to find
out, that it is not
Andreas Jung wrote:
I think there are currently several approaches doing products-as-eggs in
the Zope 2 world - I also lost track a bit and have no idea how to do it
the right way[tm].
To my knowledge, there are only two, complementary approaches:
1. Keep the Products.* namespace
-
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 22. September 2007 12:40:04 +0100 Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
I think there are currently several approaches doing products-as-eggs in
the Zope 2 world - I also lost track a bit and have no idea how to do it
the right way[tm].
To my
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote at 2007-9-22 12:21 +0100:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
We extend the Zope2 configuration with an option additional-products
which lists the products used by the instance that are not
at a standard place -- such as those installed by setuptools
I really
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
My intent is:
Given any recipe, no matter where data is coming from (be it an egg
in PyPI, a Subversion checkout or a tarball), I would like to be able
to perform an operation in the 'local copy' of the data, without
depending on the person that wrote the recipe to have
Hi Greg,
I think Zope is in serious trouble and the Zope.org web site is badly
in need of attention. I started using zope in 2001 at Xerox PARC and
the helpful and persuasive resources at zope.org were a major
factor. Today, zope.org is full of dead links and it very hard to
use unless
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 04 October 2007 09:57, Jim Fulton wrote:
This would basically involve retiring the zope3-dev list and moving
zope3 developers to the zope-dev list.
-1. I do not follow zope-dev at all and the traffic is pretty high there.
But pretty low there, if you take
Fred Drake wrote:
On 10/17/07, Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A common issue we are seeing is that we have eggs depending on each
other, but they still need to load the zcml from those dependencies
somehow. As a temporary solution to play with the concept I added
something simple to
Fred Drake wrote:
On 10/17/07, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The main win, IMHO, is to avoid the requirement for people to install
slugs for third party products. Slugs suck - they are confusing to
explain and people forget them all the time. Buildout makes it a bit
easier, but it's
Tres Seaver wrote:
I may not *want* the other package's ZCML to be loaded: some of its
policies may not be appropriate for my application. I think that the
library vs. pluggable application distinction is valid here: maybe
you want to define an entry point in the egg which a given pluggable
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
[snip]
So I turned things around: if I state in my egg information that I
require another package that means I need to have that package
available and
Alexander Limi wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:29:36 -0700, Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The recommendation is still System python is evil, evil, evil (quoting
Jim).
Sure, but if you ever want to be able to tell users to do:
easy_install plone
to get their Plone site, it's a
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Friday 09 November 2007, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Nov 9, 2007 4:06 PM, Roger Ineichen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Create our own locked down index?
I think so because,
Surely there must be a way to say I want to use THAT KGS over there.
Except for this module, that
Hi all,
For fun, I just tried to make use of adapters and utilities, registered
with ZCML, in a Pylons application.
I installed Pylons in a virtualenv, and easy_installed zope.component
and zope.interface using the KGS index for 3.4. I used
zope.configuration (also installed) to load a
Hi Chris,
Then I tried to easy_install zope.security, but this pulled in most
of Zope, including the ZODB, ZConfig and zdaemon. That's a real
shame - no CA (at least not with ZCML) without having pretty much
all of Zope there. :(
Yup. Inappropriate dependency chain when you use the
On Nov 16, 2007 2:07 PM, Stephan Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 15 November 2007, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Then I tried to easy_install zope.security, but this pulled in most of
Zope, including the ZODB, ZConfig and zdaemon. That's a real shame - no
CA (at least not with ZCML
Rob Miller wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Nov 16, 2007 11:41 AM, Lennart Regebro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 16, 2007 3:38 AM, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Help appreciated!
Well, I suggest you forget about ZCML and try to use the CA directly
from Python. The Pylons people
Jim Fulton wrote:
I understand the historical reasons behind these dependencies, but I
genuinely think we should pick a few libraries that are useful to
the outside world (zope.interface, zope.component,
zope.configuration, zope.annotation, zope.event come to mind) and
work to make these
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
So, I am trying to look at five.customerize in the context of Silva. I
look at the SVN, and see the trunk is significantly older than various
Plone-related branches. Hm, odd.
I thought, let's download the 0.2 sources from the cheeseshop. I
download them.
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
So, what's the plan to clean up this mess? Can the Plone specific
stuff be cleared up from the branches into a Plone-specific package
and a new release be made that works for both Plone and the rest of
the Zope world
Tres Seaver wrote:
That said, I suppose this should be either a conditional import or moved
to a higher level altogether.
- -1 to the conditional import; + 1 to moving the code.
Agree.
It seems to me it's also in the best interest of the Plone developers to
have this cleaned up, right?
Christophe Combelles wrote:
Stephan Richter a écrit :
Not responding to anyone in particular:
I see there are plenty people with opinions. I would love not to do the Zope 3
releases anymore! I am tired of the endless discussions.
Think I am frustrated? Absolutely!
All the suggestions made
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey,
On Feb 1, 2008 11:52 PM, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Friday 01 February 2008, Martijn Faassen wrote:
http://www.openplans.org/projects/zorg-redux
This project does not seem to be public.
Right - thanks Martijn for spilling
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Mar 21, 2008, at 12:55 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Mar 21, 2008, at 12:15 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thoughts? Objections?
I've caught the repoze bug, and if this makes a Repoze.zope3 easier
to
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 21. März 2008 19:20:46 + Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One thing that sucks right now for the repoze.zope2 story is that Zope 2
isn't officially packaged in an egg-friendly form so the Repoze guys
have to repackage it. It'd be great to be able to get
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Mar 21, 2008, at 6:54 PM, David Pratt wrote:
Hi Jim. OK great. Many thanks for elaborating. This will be
progressive. I had been considering an application use case without
a zodb. Is this the scenario that the basic publisher would
facilitate?
No-more so than the
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Mar 23, 2008, at 2:27 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Mar 21, 2008, at 6:54 PM, David Pratt wrote:
Hi Jim. OK great. Many thanks for elaborating. This will be
progressive. I had been considering an application use case
without a zodb
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
during the latest 'zope.publisher' thread on zope-dev I came up with
the proposal to eggify the Zope core for the Zope 2.12 release. I would
like to start a discussion about the pros and cons, risks and advantages
of any eggification
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Martin Aspeli wrote:
I'm not sure this is all that useful. For Plone 4, we're just going to
have a number of plone.*, plone.app.* and Products.* (and a few others,
like kss.*) eggs that we can put in a KGS or version pin
Hi all,
The rumours are true. :) An effort has been going on for a while to
improve the zope.org experience and thereby help make Zope more
accessible to new users.
I've helped co-ordinate it, but the project has been sanctioned by the
Zope Foundation and driven by people like Martijn,
Paul Carduner wrote:
I'm wondering where the Documentation section is? I'd like to
volunteer for *that* section. By the way, the design looks pretty
nice.
There's one (called Learn) for each project, i.e. zope 2, zope 3, cmf,
zodb.
Which one would you like to contribute to?
Martin
--
Paul Carduner wrote:
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Carduner wrote:
I'm wondering where the Documentation section is? I'd like to
volunteer for *that* section. By the way, the design looks pretty
nice.
There's one (called Learn) for each
Paul Carduner wrote:
On Apr 5, 2008, at 12:11 PM, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's no content that isn't visible to anonymous on the site.
Basically, we originally thought we would have one
documentation/learn section for all Zope technologies. However, it
seemed to make more
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Kent Tenney wrote:
Look at Sphinx for providing brilliant access to ReST doc.
http://sphinx.pocoo.org/
I think looking at Sphinx is definitely a worthwhile effort. That said,
I agree with Martin that we shouldn't let the new website effort be held
up by (or distracted
Alexander Limi wrote:
On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 08:52:07 -0700, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now we need people to help contribute content, review the content that's
already there and tie up a few loose ends.
You can see current state of play here: http://zode01.lovelysystems.com
Chris Withers wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Yeah, I know this is really a me too post, but I think we should err
on the side of conventional for our website. We can't go from
out-of-date boring to cutting edge hip in one giant leap; it won't be
believable. Let's stick with what people know
Chris Withers wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Yes. That's the point. It's vanilla Plone (well, one custom content type
for the feature that fronts each section, but it's trivial) with a
simple skin, not the FrankePlone that runs the old site. As a case in
point, Wichert upgraded it from 3.0
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
[I originally picked this up on a thread on zope3-users, but this
deserves its own thread here]
There are at least three approaches to SQLAlchemy integration with Zope:
* z3c.zalchemy (Christian Theune)
* z3c.sqlalchemy (Andreas Jung)
* collective.lead
Laurence Rowe wrote:
Should one phase commit be set as the default to make it easier to work
with sqlite (and mssql)? Probably yes.
Ideally we'd guess based on the URL scheme but allow it to be set
explicitly, IMHO. Single phase would be the fallback, I guess.
Should the default be for
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Martijn Pieters wrote:
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All of these are in various states of brokenness. z3c.zalchemy doesn't work
with SQLAlchemy trunk. collective.lead works with it, but only if you check
out a particular
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 9. April 2008 14:15:38 +0100 Laurence Rowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@everyone:
If we can all agree to use the same basic session and transaction
management then we should probably push for it to be included as a
sqlalchemy extension module.
I would be happy with
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Technically, I think that this is going to be hard. You'd need to patch
in the magic acquisition base class. Acquisition is the main reason that
some of the code needed to be duplicated - without the existence of
acquisition wrappers, security checks are not made for
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 10. April 2008 19:10:49 +0200 Brian Sutherland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just adding my few requirements:
- Integration into the component architecture in such a way that I
can specify the db connection parameters in ZCML and that
Andreas Jung lists at zopyx.com writes:
The way I use collective.lead in my book is to have it look up the
database settings in a local utility. That utility is editable via a
control panel page in Plone. I suspect that it'd be quite easy to do
something similar where the settings were
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
*IF* you'd like to be pragmatic, I'd suggest we clean up those failing
Plone tests, merge the branch and be on our way. Yes, we *might* be
plastering over a potential problem in the patch, but the other
tests didn't seem to be affected and intensive alpha
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Merging it into Zope trunk will get it into the Zope 2.12 release
which is at this point not scheduled yet, but is unlikely to get a
release before early 2009. This should give us plenty of time to test.
This
Maerteijn wrote:
I'm thinking about volunteering for the zope2 section, but I already can say
that I'm not an expert on all facets of zope2. However, helping out is the
main concern now so something is better than nothing.
Absolutely. I don't think you need to be an expert to do a good job. In
Martijn Faassen wrote:
You Can Save Buildout!
So, who is up to make a nice clean looking website and a few tutorials
for buildout? It needs a website. Buildout has been around for a few
years without a proper website already, Paver for 5 minutes and it's got
one. I'm not going to do it, but
Christian Theune wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 01:10:19PM +0200, Martijn Faassen wrote:
I'm on the fence on this one. I think as long as the site *says* it's
affiliated with the Zope project, the Zope community and the
foundation, we're fine. You can argue both directions here: we might
Hi Paul,
I guess I have officially volunteered to write content for the new
zope.org site in the zope 3 section. Part of that involves describing
what zope 3 is in a concise manner. I realize there are probably a
lot of different opinions about what zope 3 is, so I would like to
solicit the
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Christophe Combelles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So let's just build a first nice zope.org with subfolders explaining the
different projects because it's important to have just *something*. At
least.
Sure, that's fine. But that's just
Lennart Regebro wrote:
Martins answer doens't seem to have arrived here, so sorry for the
weird quoting:
On 21 Apr 2008, at 11:53 , Martin Aspeli wrote:
Does it really matter whether a microsite lives in
zope.org/projects/zodb or zodb.zope.org?
As mentioned, no.But it's important
How many of these do we need? zope-dev is almost unreadable at the
moment due to the number of buildout failure emails.
Martin
--
Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who
want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book
Tim Cook wrote:
On Sat, 2008-06-14 at 13:10 +0200, Christian Theune wrote:
That's exactly the behaviour I was afraid of.
I propose to keep it around for a few more days to see how it stabilizes. If
it jerks again, I'll switch off notifications until I get a change done that
avoids this
Brian Sutherland wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 08:40:24PM +0200, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
In some earlier discussions a number of approaches to integrate SQLAlchemy
into Zope were discussed. Following up on that, I've tried a particular
approach that tries to use ScopedSessions with
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Brian Sutherland wrote:
[snip]
For some reason this raises a warning bell in my head. I keep on
thinking: this is zope, the session is a classic case for a utility, we
should be getting it in views by an interface.
FWIW, I had the same though.
I
Laurence Rowe wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Brian Sutherland wrote:
[snip]
For some reason this raises a warning bell in my head. I keep on
thinking: this is zope, the session is a classic case for a utility, we
should be getting it in views
Chris Withers wrote:
Hey All,
I'm trying to run a plone-ish buildout on Windows for a customer,
currently getting this:
creating zope.proxy
copying zope/proxy\proxy.h - zope.proxy
error: Python was built with Visual Studio 2003;
extensions must be built with a compiler than can generate
Hi all,
The zope.org redux project has slowed down too much lately. I think we
are dangerously close to something that's sufficient to go live and
would be a huge improvement over the current state of affairs. We just
need the last push. In order to do that, we need a little bit of a help
To get the ball rolling...
To move this forward, please:
- Volunteer for a section or page by editing the wiki and/or just
posting here.
I volunteer to do the home page.
I've updated http://www.openplans.org/projects/zorg-redux/site-map
- Ask me for a username on new.zope.org if you
1 - 100 of 440 matches
Mail list logo
