--On 6. Oktober 2007 08:14:10 -0400 Benji York [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
we want to get rid of the term Zope 3 in the future
The confusion for people with the terms and Zope 2 and Zope 3 was
one of major topics of the last german Zope conference. And there
were also
--On 6. Oktober 2007 12:03:06 -0300 David Pratt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I agree with you Roger. I want things to stay as they are for the same
reasons. I have great respect for Zope 2 developers however there there
are two development paradigms at play that are fundamentally incompatible
--On 6. Oktober 2007 18:24:45 +0200 Roger Ineichen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Andreas
What do you man by two development paradigms?
Please don't build a wall between Zope 2 and Zope 3
developers. Most old-school Zope 2 developers are doing
development also with Zope 3 components and Zope
--On 6. Oktober 2007 03:16:53 +0200 Roger Ineichen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Betreff: [Zope3-dev] I'd lobe to merge the zope3-dev and
zope-dev lists
Any objections?
This would basically involve retiring the zope3-dev list and moving
zope3 developers to the zope-dev list.
-1
Not that I'm
--On 4. Oktober 2007 15:15:40 -0400 Stephan Richter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 04 October 2007 09:57, Jim Fulton wrote:
This would basically involve retiring the zope3-dev list and moving
zope3 developers to the zope-dev list.
-1. I do not follow zope-dev at all and the
--On 1. September 2007 16:21:23 -0400 Stephan Richter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 01 September 2007 15:33, Martijn Faassen wrote:
I think Zope will be on Python 2.x for many years to come.
I really hope not. A friend of mine and I want to get a bit involved in
Python 3000 once
--On 1. September 2007 21:40:20 +0200 Martijn Faassen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey,
David Pratt wrote:
Ultimately, the
folks that will even want to maintain a 2.x code base will quickly erode
since the forefront of development is never the past. Perhaps it will
all move more quickly for
--On 1. September 2007 16:00:19 +0530 Baiju M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
May be we can try Python 3.0 porting in next GSoC ? :)
-1 on that. I am pretty sure that this will lead to two different codebases
which are hard to maintain over long period of time. We should stick with
Python 2.X
--On 1. September 2007 16:33:58 +0530 Baiju M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 1. September 2007 16:00:19 +0530 Baiju M [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
May be we can try Python 3.0 porting in next GSoC ? :)
-1 on that. I am pretty sure that this will lead to two different
--On 29. August 2007 16:15:36 +0200 Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I don't like the overly long PyPI pages, but I do really like having
easily browsable documentation online. PyPI is the only places where
that is possible at the moment.
Pointing people to svn.zope.org to read
--On 25. August 2007 08:51:44 -0400 Benji York [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fred Drake wrote:
On 8/24/07, Stephan Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But if you prefer consistency, then we really should be staying with
the Zope 3 style guide,
This, of course, all depends on the answer to the
--On 24. August 2007 09:25:14 -0400 Stephan Richter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 23 August 2007 20:37, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
I would like to get your comments on it. No matter what this evolves to,
I wouldn't mind eventually seeing it set in stone with your blessings,
so
--On 24. August 2007 12:21:24 -0400 Fred Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/24/07, Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We should not be too pendantic when it comes to coding styles. I assume
that most contributors to Zope 3 or Zope components know how to write
code the Zope 3 way
--On 24. August 2007 19:27:23 +0200 Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I find it very stupid to prescribe whilespace rules and
Whitespace rules have a major impact on the readability of code.
Readability is a major point when we talk of code quality. Readable code
does not make code
--On 24. August 2007 19:55:35 +0200 Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote at 2007-8-24 19:35 +0200:
...
Whitespace rules have a major impact on the readability of code.
Readability is a major point when we talk of code quality. Readable code
does not make code
--On 24. August 2007 02:37:01 +0200 Philipp von Weitershausen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://svn.zope.org/*checkout*/Sandbox/philikon/foundation/maintaining-so
ftware.txt
Thanks for writing this excellent guide. However I am personally unclear
about specifying the dependencies and
--On 20. August 2007 20:22:50 -0400 Stephan Richter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 18 August 2007 17:03, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
* Please also don't forget to add a changelog entry in README.txt,
especially if you're adding features. If there's no README.txt yet, this
is a
I added encryption support (SSL/TLS) to zope.sendmail on a branch:
http://svn.zope.org/zope.sendmail/branches/ajung-encryption-branch/
I would appreciate it if someone could test it against their own
SMTP servers since I could test it only against my own SMTP
server.
Tnx,
Andreas
--On 27. Juni 2007 11:36:23 -0300 David Pratt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi. I've tended to use system python against some better advice, but use
but leave it clean since I am using buildouts. This really has had more
to do with the convenience of using the system package tools for
upgrading
Hi,
I am currently trying to build the next Zope 2.9 and Zope 2.10 releases.
I would like to ship the release with the latest Zope 3.2 and 3.3 *tagged*
releases. At least Zope 2.9 refers (because of a bugfix) to zope.interface
on the 3.2 branch. I definitely won't make 2.X releases with a
--On 31. Mai 2007 20:08:02 +0200 Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote at 2007-5-31 10:12 -0400:
In thinking about how we might specify that we want to depend on
major versions but sometimes need to specify minimum versions, the
following occurred to me:
- Suppose that we
--On 23. April 2007 09:20:14 -0400 Ariel Eduardo Morales Malpica
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi. I'm working on a project and I'm using ZODB but my mentor advices me
that this model of database will be so big after one or two years. He
consider that because ZODB works with transactions and
--On 17. März 2007 11:12:19 +0100 Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi there,
I saw Andreas Jung checked in z3c.sqlalchemy. Cool! Some questions though:
* how is this different from zalchemy?
It's providers better control about the mapper generation and should cover
all
From: Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], zope@zope.org,
zope-announce@zope.org,
zope-dev@zope.org
Subject: [Zope-Annce] [German Zope Conference] Call for Papers open
Date-Sent: 1. Februar 2007 08:06:52
Dear Zope Community,
the eighth Zope conference organized by the German
Hi,
the Zope 2 testrunner has a problem with zope.testing:
http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope/2268
testbrowser/browser.py tries a from test import pystone import it picks
up the test.py of the Zope 2 testrunner that tries to re-add some
configuration options to testrunner.setup causing the
--On 19. Januar 2007 14:41:53 -0500 Benji York [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wouldn't that change just defer the error until that function is called?
(which the testbrowser tests do)
The patch solves my problem and the testbrowser tests pass.
Andreas
pgpivN2G5VcEl.pgp
Description: PGP
--On 19. Januar 2007 15:08:49 -0500 Benji York [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 19. Januar 2007 14:41:53 -0500 Benji York [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wouldn't that change just defer the error until that function is called?
(which the testbrowser tests do)
The patch solves
--On 18. Januar 2007 08:29:57 -0500 Fred Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/18/07, Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We're faster with new Zope versions than the W3C with any standard.
So? The recommendation for XML 1.1 is already a done deal (a second
edition was published last
--On 16. Januar 2007 14:12:46 +0100 Martijn Faassen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am replying to the three proposals. First I have to kick the proposal of
Tres (UTF-8 storage). We want unicode as internal representation for any
kind of ZPT (both text/html and text/xml). Supporting unicode
--On 17. Januar 2007 22:49:11 +0100 Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote at 2007-1-17 17:48 +0100:
...
So Martijn's and my proposal remain. They are not very different. In the
end the behavior is almost identical. But I will adopt your suggestion
to remove
--On 15. Januar 2007 13:26:16 +0100 Martijn Faassen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How would you propose to parse the following unicode string?
u?xml version=1.0 encoding=ISO-8859-1?foo /
If your parser is unicode-aware then the encoding of the preamble
does not matter since you have already
--On 15. Januar 2007 14:52:42 +0100 Martijn Faassen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey,
Gmane isn't updating so I can't really reply to the message (not visible
in gmane) that I want to, but I saw the following solution proposed:
def ourparse(text):
if isinstance(text, unicode):
text
--On 15. Januar 2007 15:44:01 +0100 Martijn Faassen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey,
On 1/15/07, Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
ok, got it. But this problem can be solved easily by changing the
encoding within the preamble.
I would say refusing to guess and bailing out
--On 15. Januar 2007 22:15:46 +0100 Martijn Faassen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My point is that:
u?xml version=1.0 encoding=ISO-8859-1?fooSome non-ascii
text/foo
is confusing at best. One part of this says it's a unicode string, the
other part says it's in encoding latin-1.
The string
--On 14. Januar 2007 10:48:06 +0100 Bernd Dorn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I am not sure if this behavior is intentional?! Is the XMLParser
supposed
to deal with unicode strings or will it only accept a standard
Python string? A workaround inside parseString() would to check for
unicode
and
Hi,
the XMLParser.parseString() method raises an exception
File /opt/python-2.4.4/lib/python2.4/unittest.py, line 260, in run
testMethod()
File
/Users/ajung_data/sandboxes/Zope/Zope/lib/python/zope/tal/tests/test_xmlparser.py,
line 127, in test_xx
self._run_check(xml, ())
File
--On 8. Januar 2007 10:42:34 -0330 Rocky Burt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 14:54 -0500, Tres Seaver wrote:
http://wanderingbarque.com/nonintersecting/2006/11/15/
I think that an add-on product which provided a SOAP server,
implementing one of the competing semantics,
Hi,
I am actually looking at options for bringing SOAP support into Zope 2.
Is there some SOAP infrastructure available in Zope 3 (or some add-ons)
and might be re-used in a reasonable way?
Andreas
pgp3pdt4srmvH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
--On 6. Januar 2007 12:15:19 -0500 Stephan Richter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 06 January 2007 12:03, Andreas Jung wrote:
returns always unicode for non-strings but keeps standard Python
strings as they are.
I think we always require to return unicode text within Zope 3,
which
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --On 22. Dezember 2006 15:55:48 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It has 2 major disadvantages:
- It is ours. :) We are bearing the burden of maintaining it.
This is offset by the fact that it hasn't required much maintenance.
--On 28. September 2006 16:17:54 -0400 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We should definitely try to *support* Python 2.5, but we can't require
it till Zope 2 has been certified for it.
Why isn't Python 2.5 even supported at present?
There are lots of test failures. Also, untrusted
--On 13. September 2006 20:12:50 +0200 Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2006-9-13 11:05 +0200:
Over the last couple of days we've been discussing Zope's new release
cycle and the release management. I would like to sum up what seems to
be the gist
Hi all,
since we are three month late with the current releas, it would make sense
to reschedule Zope 2.11/3.4 for July (or was it June) next yr?! If we want
to stick with the half-yr cycles, we need to schedule the next release
for around March/April next yr. Thoughts?
Andreas
--On 12. September 2006 12:28:10 +0200 Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
since we are three month late with the current releas, it would make
sense to reschedule Zope 2.11/3.4 for July (or was it June) next yr?!
Is the reasoning here that since a release cycle
--On 12. September 2006 13:06:05 +0200 Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 12. September 2006 12:28:10 +0200 Martijn Faassen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Anyway, if the main thing holding up *this* release is bugfixes, doing a
new release in 3 months
--On 12. September 2006 16:55:31 +0200 Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Personally I think we should just release the trunk every six months
(with a list of known bugs) and that be it. (I'm speaking of Zope 3
here, I don't know enough about the dynamics of the Zope 2 ecosystem to
--On 8. September 2006 14:13:05 -0400 Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
When you check in a bug fix, you almost always need to:
* Check in the fix on the current release branch
branches(!). For Zope 2 we actually maintain 2.10, 2.9 and still a bit 2.8.
-aj
pgp2jdg3pXfMa.pgp
Benji,
when running the Zope 2.10b2 unittests I see the following tests failing
(however this is not a blocker for the 2.10b2 release):
Failure in test test_strip_linebreaks_from_textarea (zope.testbrowser.tests)
Failed doctest test for
--On 19. August 2006 17:25:39 +0530 Baiju M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is already fixed according to:
http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope3-dev/645
The fix is in 'ClientForm.py', this file is *not* set as an
svn:external in Zope 2.
Just setting this as svn:external to Zope 3.3 will fix
--On 16. August 2006 08:36:55 -0400 Benji York [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jodok Batlogg wrote:
Log message for revision 69426:
Initial import from Lovely Systems repository
Changed:
A lovely.rating/
This package appears to depend on GPLed software (schooltool,
specifically:
--On 16. August 2006 15:42:41 +0200 Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Anyway, nothing is said about dependency on GPL-ed code. That's a
different debate. It's strictly not against rules, but it does mean one
expectation is broken: one might want to expect that all code in the
--On 17. August 2006 01:11:44 -0400 Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The appropriate thing here would be to remove the code which depends on
the GPL, and then ask the foundation's permission before readding it.
In the meanwhile, codespeak.net might provide a reasonable place from
which
--On 22. Juli 2006 15:34:01 +0200 Tino Wildenhain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Well, pagetemplate files are another thing. They have to deal with
the lack of charset information of a filesystem file and what they
do once they load the data is even another thing.
Even filesystem pagetemplates
--On 16. Juli 2006 09:33:33 -0400 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll note that *none* of the solutions include tests. Tests are often
the
bulk of the work. A submitter should not assume that just because a
patch is provided, than someone only has to check it in.
Submitter do
Hi,
could someone please summarize the current state of Zope 3.3? When can we
produced with the next releases? We are currently running a bit late
behind our original schedule :-)
Andreas
pgpCDQqRbcoyW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Zope3-dev
--On 26. Juni 2006 11:25:05 +0100 Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
It's dead from a maintenance point of view. If you still want to
maintain it, be our guest. But you yourself said that maintaining too
many branches is madness.
My point is that
--On 19. Juni 2006 16:25:32 +0200 Lennart Regebro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I for one, is NOT interested in backporting fixed in Five trunk to
both Five 1.0, 1.1, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5, which is what are the current
versions of Five if we say that Zope 2.8 and 2.7 should be still
supported after
--On 18. Juni 2006 14:36:06 -0400 Christian Theune [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, Zope 2.8 is still available for stable download ... so we
currently have 7 branches to watch out for.
Yes, but in most cases a fix only affects only Zope 2 or Zope 3. So
we are back to 3.
-aj
--
ZOPYX
--On 9. Mai 2006 11:02:33 +0530 baiju m [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/9/06, Stephan Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello everyone,
The Zope 3 development team is proud to announce Zope 3.3.0 beta 1.
Congratulations to all worked behind this release!
I was trying to install this release
--On 6. Mai 2006 10:12:21 +0200 John Catt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
JSR 170
http://www.cmswatch.com/Feature/123
http://www.artima.com/lejava/articles/contentrepository3.html
seems to be the next standard of the CMS world.
Wouldn't be a good thing to make Zope 3 compatible with this
--On 21. April 2006 08:55:26 -0400 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't forget that the feature freeze for the June release is May 1!
That is only 10 days away! New features should be check in in a
*stable* form by then. While we won't necessarily do a beta release
then, anything
---
- Andreas JungZOPYX Ltd. Co KG-
- E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: www.zopyx.com, www.zopyx.de
--On 14. März 2006 17:17:12 + Laurence Rowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know that everyone here in pythonland seems to hate xml,
Nothing but a stupid rumor :-)
it may not be
pretty, but we have to use it for at least some things anyway. We
probably all spend quite a bit of our time
I would like to update Docutils for Zope 2 trunk and Zope 3 trunk to v
0.4.0.
Any objections for
- importing docutils as top-level module on svn.zope.org
- replacing src/docutils with an svn:externals definition
?
Andreas
pgpXIknsX6Wpy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--On 13. März 2006 16:49:27 -0500 Benji York [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It looks like revision 65953 (updated to Docutils 0.4.0) broke the unit
tests. For details see
http://buildbot.zope.org:8002/Zope3%20trunk%202.4%20Linux%20zc-buildbot/b
uilds/382/test/0
Andreas, do you have any idea why
--On 9. März 2006 18:21:16 +0530 baiju m [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know whether there is something for Zope, anyway just posting.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/turbogears/browse_thread/thread/f77979a
d0e1dacd0/b97cc6d6af9439d6?tvc=2q=turbogears+configobj#b97cc6d6af9439d6
--On 7. März 2006 06:51:00 -0500 Chris McDonough [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My $.02: I suspect it might be better to just use XML than configparser
as a ZConfig replacement. The config format is a stretch under CP due
to the lack of hierarchy. I'm beginning to think the don't make admins
--On 4. März 2006 21:26:30 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/UseConfigParserForHighLevelConfiguration
Is a proposal for using ConfigParser, rather than ZConfig for high-level
configuration.
Comments welcome.
-1
The right way would be to
--On 5. März 2006 13:56:38 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The right way would be to refactor ZConfig and decouple it in a
reasonable way from its dependencies.
I think this would be a major rewrite.
Possibly but I don't consider that to be a strong argument for introducing
a
--On 5. März 2006 14:43:48 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no question that ZConfig has the
problems you described. But I consider such a flat representation as
poor and a step back
instead of a step forward (independent of the effort needed to simply
and refactor
--On 28. Februar 2006 16:06:55 +0100 Philipp von Weitershausen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think focusing on one app server and a dedicated set of libraries
would be a good alternative to two concurring app servers.
+1
-aj
pgp3JPYef1z8N.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--On 27. Februar 2006 21:57:46 -0500 Stephan Richter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 27 February 2006 10:37, Jim Fulton wrote:
1) Our current vision (AFAIK) is that Zope 3 will eventually
replace Zope 2
2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
As you probably know
--On 12. Februar 2006 19:18:51 +0100 Max M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a href=#
tal:attributes=href here/absolute_url;
title here/title;
id here/getId
tal:content=here/TitleTitle/a
I could write this:
a href=here/absolute_url id=here/getId
--On 5. Februar 2006 12:11:08 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A while ago, we had some discussion on when to make releases and
how long to support deprecated features. The discussion has died down
so I'll summarize what I think the conclusions were:
- We'll move releases up one
--On 23. Januar 2006 18:29:18 +0100 Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
And the intended audience of ZCML is a very different audience -
developers versus sysadmins.
This separation is artificial. I've never seen a single Zope installation
where a system administrator had to care
--On 23. Januar 2006 19:06:02 +0100 Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Anyway, this whole discussion may be moot; Jim's proposal is rather hard
to interpret for people in this thread, so now I don't know anymore what
he's proposing. :)
I agree. I seconds Philipps proposal to
--On 18. Januar 2006 07:36:35 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the future, if someone introduces a major change, they *must* be
committed to be available to deal with issues that arise during the
release cycle. Perhaps we need to pick different release dates to
avoid holidays.
--On 18. Januar 2006 10:31:03 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
...
The basic problem with the windows release is that there is currently
nobody in charge for the windows release (although Tim is again doing
working on the Windows side, ALL HAIL TIM).
I'll
--On 29. Dezember 2005 10:08:03 -0330 Rocky Burt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
Another argument against removing python expressions: in Zope 2
scripters could directly modify and test templates, script etc. (also
using the skins tool). In Z3 you have to restart the server
--On 30. Dezember 2005 08:22:18 -0700 Jeff Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The same would probably be relevant for tal:defines, something like:
div define:mammals=here/getMammals
define:fish=here/getFish
/
- It looks nice! :)
That's relative.
It would call it: syntactic
--On 30. Dezember 2005 11:50:16 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm gonna stay out of this except to note that this discussion should
be happening on the ZPT list (zpt@zope.org), as it affects much more than
Zope 3 (or even Zope for that matter).
Wasn't the ZPT list considered
--On 28. Dezember 2005 17:29:11 +0100 Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--On 28. Dezember 2005 11:04:09 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you all think?
+1
Views make it much easier to keep Python code in Python modules.
python expressions should be strongly
I am currently working on the integration of Zope 3 ZPTs into Zope 2. This
works so far expect that I get an error Macro expansion failed when
creating a new ZPT.
in pagetemplate/pagetemplate.py there is the following code:
self.pt_render(self.pt_getContext(self, None), source=1)
That
--On 8. Dezember 2005 13:57:10 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 8. Dezember 2005 11:47:10 -0500 Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yep. Nobody has complained to us about this yet. I personally do not
use ZEO, so I could not fix the issue anyways
--On 7. Dezember 2005 14:08:29 -0500 Craeg Strong
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am using FC4 and Python 2.4.1 comes built in.
This is just a play/development machine, nothing needs to be airtight.
Can anyone provide a summary of what is likely to go wrong using
Zope 3.2b1 with Python 2.4.1
--On 5. Dezember 2005 09:52:38 -0500 Stephan Richter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 04 December 2005 14:35, Jim Fulton wrote:
Stephan, what needs to be done to get a beta out?
Okay, I'll cut it. It might take me till Wednesday, though.
Will do the same for Zope 2.9 on
--On 23. November 2005 18:39:39 + Chris Withers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
For Zope 3.2 publishers are pluggable and can be configure through ZCML.
The registration is based on the request method and mime-type.
Then what
--On 24. November 2005 07:09:00 +0100 Morten W. Petersen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are not even getting bug reports.
Likely because Zope 3 *just-works* :-)
-aj
pgpC8hG89OHHQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
--On 22. November 2005 20:37:16 +0100 Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
You should complain about this misfeature on zope3-dev@zope.org.
Definitely, there should not be a fixed (not configurable)
association between text/xml requests and XML-RPC
as text/xml can be interesting for the
--On 17. November 2005 07:45:48 +0800 Philipp von Weitershausen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 16. November 2005 14:03:05 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does this mean that the existing 2.9 branch needs to be removed and that
the trunk remains frozen
--On 14. November 2005 14:25:17 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 00:20 +0800, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Florent Guillaume wrote:
BTW I'm for removing the 2.9 branch for now.
You didn't, so I presume 2.9 branch stays? It's important to clear the
status
to it (see my
email about Tres' bugfix, for example).
By the way, in the future, just to avoid confusion, I think release
branches should be made by the release manager (in thise case Andreas
Jung). They clearly fall under their responsibility and supervision.
Jup. So when I see clear the only
--On 13. November 2005 10:55:19 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you also track bugs?
I can only what I know of. If there are bugs then they should be documented
in the collector.
I'm not sure how, aside from feature
completeness, we
decide we're ready for a beta. For Zope 3,
--On 13. November 2005 11:25:21 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope/collector_contents?searching=yepSear
chableText=status%3Alist%3Aignore_empty=Acceptedstatus%3Alist%3Aignore_
--On 13. November 2005 20:33:01 +0100 Florent Guillaume [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Anyway if we want to go further we need to schedule bug days. One per
week, or something like that. Otherwise nobody will set aside the time to
discuss, investigate and fix the current bugs.
Right, right, but
--On 14. November 2005 02:42:31 +0100 Florent Guillaume [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[Reply-To and Followup-To zope-dev]
Andreas Jung wrote:
Anyway if we want to go further we need to schedule bug days. One per
week, or something like that. Otherwise nobody will set aside the time
to discuss
--On 12. November 2005 22:08:38 -0500 Chris McDonough [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
FYI (this is mostly for the benefit of the Five folks), I've created a
Zope 2.9 branch from the trunk as of about 10 minutes ago. This branch
is frozen for feature work; it may need some changing of externals to
--On 7. Oktober 2005 11:25:00 -0500 Garrett Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
- The export/import functionality people are used to with Zope 2
I suspect the export/import feature alone will be attractive to anyone
with production servers, as it enables object-specific backup and restore.
was starting. So why do we have different behaviour here?
Bug or Feature?
-aj
---
- Andreas JungZOPYX Software Development and Consulting -
- E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: www.zopyx.com
Hi,
I restructured the TXNG 3 source so that the core implementation can be
used as package (within Zope 2.8/Five)
...so far so good.
The configure.zcml under Products/TextIndexNG3 contains several statements
of the form:
utility
provides=textindexng.interfaces.IConverter
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
