Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope] Using 2.3.2 for Zope 2.7
On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 17:27, Jamie Heilman wrote: In 2.3 you can no longer declare new classes in a Script object. It bitches about a lack of __name__ attribute. I haven't really had the time to look into it closely, but it does effect the examples shipped with zope, and actually its just a very useful thing to be able to do. Whatever this problem stems from, there will probably be more because of it. In Python 2.3.x, when a class is defined the __name__ of the encompassing module is looked up. I suspect Python Scripts can be fixed by defining __name__ in the globals dictionary in which the code is executed. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. fred at zope.com PythonLabs at Zope Corporation ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope] Using 2.3.2 for Zope 2.7
[Fred L. Drake, Jr.] In Python 2.3.x, when a class is defined the __name__ of the encompassing module is looked up. I suspect Python Scripts can be fixed by defining __name__ in the globals dictionary in which the code is executed. Thanks, Fred! I added this info to the collector entry: http://collector.zope.org/Zope/1074 ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope] Using 2.3.2 for Zope 2.7
OK, I will add this to the collector, thank you! On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 17:27, Jamie Heilman wrote: Chris McDonough wrote: OK, sounds like a slam dunk to me. I think its a fine idea (finally secure temporary files!), but let me present the first bug I've run into with 2.3 (I've been testing with it). In 2.3 you can no longer declare new classes in a Script object. It bitches about a lack of __name__ attribute. I haven't really had the time to look into it closely, but it does effect the examples shipped with zope, and actually its just a very useful thing to be able to do. Whatever this problem stems from, there will probably be more because of it. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope] Using 2.3.2 for Zope 2.7
[Chris McDonough] Some people at ZC have made pretty compelling arguments to make Python 2.3.2 the recommended version of Python to use with Zope 2.7 final. I'm wondering if other people have a strong feeling about this either way. [george donnelly] yes please. :) python 2.3 seems a lot faster to me and even quite stable so far. or did you mean 2.2.3? Chris did mean 2.3.2, which is still unfamiliar to most because it was just released today: http://www.python.org/2.3.2/ This came very soon after the 2.3.1 release, and just fixes a few gross but obscure platform-specific packaging mistakes in 2.3.1. In reality and with benefit of hindsight, what was released as 2.3.1 should have been released as 2.3.1c1 (release candidate 1), and then 2.3.2 should have been released as 2.3.1 final. Regardless, 2.3.2 is the best Python in existence (by any criterion other than identical to 1.5.2 wink). ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope] Using 2.3.2 for Zope 2.7
OK, sounds like a slam dunk to me. I have changed the Zope 2.7 windows builder to use Python 2.3.2 and I have changed the source version configure script to look for 2.3.2 as it's optimal version. This all appears to work. Once an RPM is released for Python 2.3.2, I'll change the spec file for the Zope RPM release to depend on that instead of a 2.2.3 RPM. Currently, Zope still claims it works with 2.2.X (via the configure script's acceptable versions feature). Should we continue to make that claim true by not depending on any Python 2.3-specific features in the Zope core? I don't think there are a lot of super-compelling core and/or library differences between Pythons 2.3.2 and 2.2.3 that would make this a hardship on core Zope developers. - C On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 11:30, Tim Peters wrote: [Chris McDonough] Some people at ZC have made pretty compelling arguments to make Python 2.3.2 the recommended version of Python to use with Zope 2.7 final. I'm wondering if other people have a strong feeling about this either way. [george donnelly] yes please. :) python 2.3 seems a lot faster to me and even quite stable so far. or did you mean 2.2.3? Chris did mean 2.3.2, which is still unfamiliar to most because it was just released today: http://www.python.org/2.3.2/ This came very soon after the 2.3.1 release, and just fixes a few gross but obscure platform-specific packaging mistakes in 2.3.1. In reality and with benefit of hindsight, what was released as 2.3.1 should have been released as 2.3.1c1 (release candidate 1), and then 2.3.2 should have been released as 2.3.1 final. Regardless, 2.3.2 is the best Python in existence (by any criterion other than identical to 1.5.2 wink). ___ Zope maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ) -- Chris McDonough [EMAIL PROTECTED] Zope Corporation ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope] Using 2.3.2 for Zope 2.7
Chris McDonough writes: Currently, Zope still claims it works with 2.2.X (via the configure script's acceptable versions feature). Should we continue to make that claim true by not depending on any Python 2.3-specific features in the Zope core? I don't think there are a lot of super-compelling core and/or library differences between Pythons 2.3.2 and 2.2.3 that would make this a hardship on core Zope developers. Requiring 2.3 (any flavor) would allow us to drop the copy of the logging package from Zope 2.7 and newer. There are greater benefits for Zope 3, where we have several modules and packages laying around that would no longer be needed (logging, csv, gettext). I also don't know that we should consider 2.3.1 acceptable for any version of Zope. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. fred at zope.com PythonLabs at Zope Corporation ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope] Using 2.3.2 for Zope 2.7
[Chris McDonough] Currently, Zope still claims it works with 2.2.X (via the configure script's acceptable versions feature). Actually, 2.2, 2.2.1, and 2.2.2 aren't acceptable for Zope even now, because of Zope-critical Python bugs first fixed in 2.2.3. There's no version of 2.2 with a fix for the rare RH9 Unicode-segfault bug Jeremy stumbled into a few weeks ago (while running Zope tests), and there may never be. Should we continue to make that claim true by not depending on any Python 2.3-specific features in the Zope core? I don't think there are a lot of super-compelling core and/or library differences between Pythons 2.3.2 and 2.2.3 that would make this a hardship on core Zope developers. I don't know whether it's a hardship for anyone to install 2.3.2 but not to install 2.2.3. Seems unlikely wink. In the spambayes project, we've found that people just can't stop themselves from using the new-in-2.3 enumerate() builtin, and the new-in-2.3 Sets module. They're generally useful. Since 2.2.3 is slower and buggier than 2.3.2, and may be the last of the 2.2 line, I'm not sure we'd be doing anyone a real favor by facilitating hanging on to 2.2.3. [Fred L. Drake, Jr.] Requiring 2.3 (any flavor) would allow us to drop the copy of the logging package from Zope 2.7 and newer. There are greater benefits for Zope 3, where we have several modules and packages laying around that would no longer be needed (logging, csv, gettext). Plus I copy 2.3's strptime.py module into Zope3 now (and have to edit it each time I synch up to get rid of its enumerate() call), and Zope3 has a different all-Python implementation of the new-in-2.3 all-C datetime module. The C version of datetime is more desirable due to its comparative memory frugality. One more: We're trying to move toward replacing ExtensionClass with new-style classes. This is straightforward under 2.3, but there's still a relevant glitch in 2.2.3 that appears to make it much harder (that's why the code on zodb3-devel-branch works fine under 2.3 but segfaults left and right under 2.2.3; zodb3-devel-branch is quiet now, but will probably become important again). I also don't know that we should consider 2.3.1 acceptable for any version of Zope. 2.3.1 is missing os.fsync() on POSIX systems (a gross mistake that snuck into 2.3.1), and MvL's arguments notwithstanding, ZODB wants to use os.fsync() on POSIX systems. 2.3.1 was a mistake, but a mistake that got fixed quickly. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope] Using 2.3.2 for Zope 2.7
Chris McDonough wrote: OK, sounds like a slam dunk to me. I think its a fine idea (finally secure temporary files!), but let me present the first bug I've run into with 2.3 (I've been testing with it). In 2.3 you can no longer declare new classes in a Script object. It bitches about a lack of __name__ attribute. I haven't really had the time to look into it closely, but it does effect the examples shipped with zope, and actually its just a very useful thing to be able to do. Whatever this problem stems from, there will probably be more because of it. -- Jamie Heilman http://audible.transient.net/~jamie/ You came all this way, without saying squat, and now you're trying to tell me a '56 Chevy can beat a '47 Buick in a dead quarter mile? I liked you better when you weren't saying squat kid. -Buddy ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope] Using 2.3.2 for Zope 2.7
Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote Requiring 2.3 (any flavor) would allow us to drop the copy of the logging package from Zope 2.7 and newer. There are greater benefits for Zope 3, where we have several modules and packages laying around that would no longer be needed (logging, csv, gettext). Don't forget you also get the C version of datetime. I also don't know that we should consider 2.3.1 acceptable for any version of Zope. Meh. 2.3.1 gets a bad rap. Aside from the fsync problem, there's nothing fundamentally broken about it. Anthony -- Anthony Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's never too late to have a happy childhood. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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/mailman/listinfo/zope )
