On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mar 25, 2008, at 5:25 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>
> > Security proxies: this topic may not be directly publisher related,
>
> It's not.
>
> > but maybe it is.
>
> Nope. :)
>
> > Somewhere quite low in the request handli
On Mar 25, 2008, at 5:25 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]
Thoughts? Objections?
A simpler publisher has been on my wish-list for a long time now.
I'm a bit worried though that a publisher born from the current Zope
3 publisher with the goal to build up enough support fo
Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]
Thoughts? Objections?
A simpler publisher has been on my wish-list for a long time now.
I'm a bit worried though that a publisher born from the current Zope 3
publisher with the goal to build up enough support for the Zope 3
publisher to make use of the code will not
On Mar 21, 2008, at 3:35 PM, 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 repacka
On Mar 23, 2008, at 3:12 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
No-more so than the existing publisher. I just want to make
the publisher useful for small applications that don't need
the component architecture and other facilities that
zope.publisher depends on for mostly minor reasons.
This is of c
On Mar 23, 2008, at 3:02 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
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 appli
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. Is this the scenar
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. Is this the scenario that the basic
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 e
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
--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 Zope 2 released in
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
do/hap
12 matches
Mail list logo
