On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 09:33:02PM +0200, Jerome Alet wrote:
>
> registering a ZMI plugin would be as simple as :
>
> root.registerZMIPlugin("top|line|bottom", self)
>
> or :
>
> root.registerTopZMIPlugin(self)
> root.registerLineZMIPlugin(sel
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 05:08:21PM +0100, Adrian Hungate wrote:
>
> One question about zshell though, what is the box that is added "left of the
> add product pulldown"? Is it something that ABSOLUTELY has to be on the
> contents listing (i.e. something to do with creating or maintaining the
> ob
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Jim Penny wrote:
[Snip]
> > It looks as though what is needed is fish-bowl proposal to redesign the way
> > ObjectManager handles and displays rows for specific object types - the
> > requirement being that this be third-party-pluggable (For want of a better
> > term). (No t
To: "Adrian Hungate" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] A Modest Proposal Concerning Monkey Patches
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 03:48:51PM +0100, Adrian Hungate wrote:
> > Hmm... ok, now I see what you are talking about, however, y
mption?
Adrian...
--
Adrian Hungate
EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: http://www.haqa.co.uk
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Penny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Adrian Hungate" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 3:34 PM
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 08:46:41AM +0100, Adrian Hungate wrote:
> >
> > Again, monkey patching doesn't modify source code, so I don't know
> > what would be getting written into tmp.
> >
> > > Comments?
> >
> > Didn't someone else make a proposal (with code) to handle this?
> > Was it PatchKit?
>
>
> Again, monkey patching doesn't modify source code, so I don't know
> what would be getting written into tmp.
>
> > Comments?
>
> Didn't someone else make a proposal (with code) to handle this?
> Was it PatchKit?
Yup, and it is more than a proposal, it is a full blown product (
http://www.zope
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 01:56:22PM -0400, Casey Duncan wrote:
> I know I will regret that I said this, but this is really symptomatic of a
> more basic need. The need to extend manage_main.
>
> This has been identified as a hot spot for products to "monkey" with. Why
> don't we go right to
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Casey Duncan wrote:
> That is why it would be beneficial to make the thing being patched extensible
> in the first place thereby alleviating the need to patch it.
This is a very good point. Now that we have comitters outside
zope corp, Product authors probably ought to think
On Tuesday 13 August 2002 02:10 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue Aug 13, 2002, Jim Penny wrote:
> > There is a large problem looming with Moneky Patches. The problem is
> > that monkey patches are so Highlander. "There can be Only One".
> >
> > For example, there are at least five or six pro
On Tue Aug 13, 2002, Jim Penny wrote:
> There is a large problem looming with Moneky Patches. The problem is
> that monkey patches are so Highlander. "There can be Only One".
>
> For example, there are at least five or six products that monkey patch
> manage_main. Each simply replaces whatever ma
I know I will regret that I said this, but this is really symptomatic of a
more basic need. The need to extend manage_main.
This has been identified as a hot spot for products to "monkey" with. Why
don't we go right to the source and make manage_main extensible so that
monkey patching it isn't
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Jim Penny wrote:
> B) If so, he makes whatever checks he can to determine if he can
> update the file in $(INSTANCE_HOME)/tmp.
Updating a (disk based) file and monkey patching don't seem to
go together in my mind. I'm really unclear what you are proposing
here.
13 matches
Mail list logo
