Stephan Richter wrote:
from zope.interface import Interface
from zope.schema import TextLine
class IFoo(Interface):
... title = TextLine()
...
class IBar(IFoo):
... pass
...
IBar['title']
zope.schema._bootstrapfields.TextLine object at 0xb7bc17ac
Something fishy here!
Also Thomas' buildbot sometimes breaks, this looks like a real error.
The ZEO tests seem to hang!
So somebody from the blamelist might want to look into that.
Christian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope3 trunk 2.4 Linux tlotze.
On Thursday 24 August 2006 02:29, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
It's obviously IFoo, because:
IBar['title'] is IFoo['title']
True
I sort of expect this. Why? Because it also happens with classes:
class Foo(object):
... x = object()
...
class Bar(Foo):
... pass
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 24 August 2006 02:29, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
It's obviously IFoo, because:
IBar['title'] is IFoo['title']
True
I sort of expect this. Why? Because it also happens with classes:
class Foo(object):
... x = object()
...
class
On Thursday 24 August 2006 04:56, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
formlib's use of the 'interface' attribute indeed suggests that people
would expect a different behaviour. Feeling pretty much indifferent
about this, I just wonder if there are any potential repercussions. For
example,
Stephan Richter wrote:
But which is it?
both 0.2 wink
Personally, I'd say it depends which class you asked...
This really hurts zope.formlib.
How so?
Before playing with it, I would like to know what other people think. So, what
do you think?
Relying on something as unclear as this
On Wednesday 23 August 2006 19:13, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 8/23/06, Stephan Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you ask zope.formlib (form.py, line 227)::
# Adapt context, if necessary
interface = field.interface
...
adapter = interface(context)
Here the answer would be:
On Thursday 24 August 2006 04:05, Chris Withers wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
But which is it?
both 0.2 wink
Personally, I'd say it depends which class you asked...
I specifically asked IBar, not IFoo. So there is no ambiguity. From your
response I deduce you expect IBar.
This really
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope3 trunk 2.4 Linux tlotze.
Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/
Build Reason: The web-page 'force build' button was pressed by 'Benji': try
again after system fixes
Build Source Stamp: None
Blamelist:
BUILD FAILED: failed test
sincerely,
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
[snip]
I'm +1 too, but I'm against naming this category Zope 3. I would just
call it Zope.
+1
Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub:
Hi there,
See the following proposal:
http://www.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Projects/ComponentArchitecture/ErrorReportingUnification
To be determined is whether we want to keep the rules currently in place
for the SiteError log and apply them to the error reporting utility as
well, or remove
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
See the following proposal:
http://www.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Projects/ComponentArchitecture/ErrorReportingUnification
+1, as posted in a comment already.
To be determined is whether we want to keep the rules currently in place
for the SiteError log and
Zope Corporation is happy to announce a number of newly open-sourced
packages. All are in use, in development, or both.
We release these packages in the strong hope that others will
contribute to them, from maintenance through extension to
refactoring. The maintainers are effectively
Gary Poster wrote:
Zope Corporation is happy to announce a number of newly open-sourced
packages. All are in use, in development, or both.
[snip long list]
Awesome! And thanks for this announcement! And here Infrae's with only 3
hurry packages last year - I feel totally inadequate. :)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
See the following proposal:
http://www.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Projects/ComponentArchitecture/ErrorReportingUnification
+1, as posted in a comment already.
To be determined
Tres Seaver wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
See the following proposal:
http://www.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Projects/ComponentArchitecture/ErrorReportingUnification
+1, as posted in a comment already.
To be determined is whether we want to keep the
Tres Seaver wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
See the following proposal:
http://www.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Projects/ComponentArchitecture/ErrorReportingUnification
+1, as posted in a comment
On Aug 24, 2006, at 12:14 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
Zope Corporation is happy to announce a number of newly open-
sourced packages. All are in use, in development, or both.
[snip long list]
Awesome! And thanks for this announcement! And here Infrae's with
only 3 hurry
Stephan's ZSCP proposal suggests using the package name z3c for
community packages. IOW, packages that aren't part of a larger
collection like lovely.*, zc.*, etc.. There are currently several z3c
packages in existence.
The zope3.org packages currently use the package name zorg. I
Benji York wrote:
Stephan's ZSCP proposal suggests using the package name z3c for
community packages. IOW, packages that aren't part of a larger
collection like lovely.*, zc.*, etc.. There are currently several z3c
packages in existence.
The zope3.org packages currently use the package
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 24 August 2006 16:54, Benji York wrote:
Stephan's ZSCP proposal suggests using the package name z3c for
community packages. IOW, packages that aren't part of a larger
collection like lovely.*, zc.*, etc.. There are currently several z3c
packages in
On Thursday 24 August 2006 16:57, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
(In fairness, I'll note that Stephan likes z3c better, and that name is
already in semi-wide-spread use).
Afaik, nothing has been released yet. Plus, changing the namesapce
shouldn't be that hard, simple search'n'replace
On Thursday 24 August 2006 16:54, Benji York wrote:
Stephan's ZSCP proposal suggests using the package name z3c for
community packages. IOW, packages that aren't part of a larger
collection like lovely.*, zc.*, etc.. There are currently several z3c
packages in existence.
The zope3.org
On 8/24/06, Benji York [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If zc were to become zope community, I'd be *totally* for it (but I
don't speak for ZC here, so that may not be cool with others, like say
Jim). We'd either keep using zc under the new meaning, or switch to
something else.
z3c clearly stands for
Marius Gedminas wrote:
Is there a replacement that generates testbrowser test files? I think I
heard about it somewhere.
Not (that I know of) from HTTP request logs, but there is
zope.testrecorder which can record browser activity and can produce
zope.testbrowser or Selenium HTML table
25 matches
Mail list logo
