Jim Fulton wrote:
One issue though is that I want to replace ZConfig with a ZConfig
format for zcml. (This would include making ZCML extensible to accept
any other format.) The user experience would be the same, but
extending it would be a lot easier than extensing ZConfig. I plan to
make a
Stephan Richter wrote:
Let's say zope.testbrowser is an egg and I discover a bug in
zope.textbrowser while doing some other Zope 3 development, I have to
check out zope.testbrowser, fix the bug, check it in, download the
new egg and hope it fixed my Zope 3 problem.
I'm an egg neophyte, but I
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Wednesday 18 January 2006 19:09, Jim Fulton wrote:
You know my position concerning the repository and the release; I'd
prefer them to be kept as similar as possible to simplify the release
process. I hope we can go in that direction. It also makes things more
Stephan Richter wrote:
[svn reflecting egg dependency structure]
That would work for me. If it resolves the risk and is still pretty automated,
SVN checkout or even calling make, then it is fine by me. The others have
also pointed out the egg development mode.
Right, I didn't know of that,
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 07:00:43AM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
| Stephan Richter wrote:
| On Wednesday 18 January 2006 19:09, Jim Fulton wrote:
|
| You know my position concerning the repository and the release; I'd
| prefer them to be kept as similar as possible to simplify the release
| process. I
Martijn Faassen wrote:
...
Sure, I support dependencies and separating out Zope into sub projects,
I'm just listing an additional use case: the repository state should be
similar to release state, to avoid confusion for developers as well as
people who want to become developers.
I.e. a
Martijn Faassen wrote:
...
A risk here is that if I find a bug in package X, I can't easily track
it into package Y and fix it there, as package Y is an egg. The current
system doesn't have this problem.
There are two issues here:
1. Debugging. Can debugging tools show you code in eggs? They
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 19 January 2006 07:00, Jim Fulton wrote:
I feel like an old record, but please
let's keep the development process as simple as possible. I rather make
some concessions to the packaging and dependency system than spending
more time developing.
Perhaps
I like the first format, it's clearer. Although I understand the point
of the second (but I would not have any use of it). Maybe the URL can
be added to the information displayed?
Note that the url would in most cases only work as long as you are on
the same network, unless a reverse DNS lookup
...
[Stephan Ricther]
I have seen you take a similar approach to zope.testing and I found that
painful just by watching the checkins.
[Jim Fulton]
I don't understand what you mean. Having a separate zope.testing project has
been extremely useful. For example, in our comercial apps,
we
Hello,
I did a small enhancement to the HomeFolderManager.
I've added a field containerObject that holds the object to be created as a
home folder. The type is string. The default is zope.app.folder.Folder.
The field is validated with:
def _toFieldValue(self, input):
try:
objectToCreate =
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
...
What if we can create in SVN the equivalent of what would be an egg +
its dependencies for checkout, using externals? I know Jim said he
doesn't want to use externals, but I'm thinking in that direction.
You'd have one SVN directory for each egg,
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Yes, but Zope 2 included *less* than Zope 3 in the most recent
release, and I'd like *all* packages that are in a Zope 3 release to
be available in a Zope 2 release. I.e. Five doesn't want packages that
aren't in a Zope 3 release, but not less
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Another use case, probably mostly in the context of Five, it's nice to
have an inclusive release of Zope 3 in Zope 2. The goal of reducing
the amount of code included in Zope 2 sounds nice in theory, but it
stops Five developers from exposing Zope 3
Rocky Burt wrote at 2006-1-18 23:13 -0330:
Marius Gedminas wrote:
* I can copy the URL and paste it directly into a browser
* I can right-click on the URL, and choose Open in web browser from
the popup menu that GNOME terminal gives me.
What do you think about changing Zope 3 server
On 1/20/06, Tim Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In all, zope.testing is a poster child for the value of package
development outside of a Zope tree.
I've been very happy using zope.testing with several non zope
projects. Including how easy it is to follow and distribute that
package as needed
I have a version of zope.schema.Orderable (in
zope.schema._bootstrapfields.py) that passes additional tests having to
do with combination of missing_value with other constraints. (Released
version fails these.)
What should I do with it? I am new, and haven't contributed anything
before. Does
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alexander Limi wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:48:42 -0800, Marius Gedminas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This is what Zope 3 prints on startup:
2006-01-19 00:47:32,059 zope.server.http (HTTP) started.
Hostname: pitonas
Port:
Jim Fulton wrote:
I think we should investigate eggs. Do I know they will work? No. I
haven't done much with them yet. Do you know they won't? Obviously not.
I suggest we reserve jusdgement until we have had an opportunity for
some prototyping. Based on what I've seen so far, I'm very
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
One issue though is that I want to replace ZConfig with a ZConfig
format for zcml. (This would include making ZCML extensible to accept
any other format.) The user experience would be the same, but
extending it would be a lot easier than extensing
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 01 December 2005 09:28, Chris Withers wrote:
Do we want Zope to always respond to this header?
Yes, it's helpful for testing, but surely it risks information
disclosure vulnerabilities or worse if used on a production application?
The user would receive no
Jim Fulton wrote:
Neither. I want to use ZCML's machinery to implement ZConfig's
syntax to:
- make it easier to define/customize ZConfig options, and
- maintain one rather than 2 configuration systems.
The end-user experience would be the same.
I'd love to see this ;-) At some point I want
22 matches
Mail list logo
