On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 07:28:09AM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
| Sidnei da Silva wrote:
| >So we are shooting for a z2 request implemented in terms of a z3
| >request. Sounds like an adapter to me :)
|
| Maybe, however, if it is, it should happen as part of the request
| factory.
That's what I had i
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 07:14:08PM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
| >Here's what is in the docstring for HTTPRequest:
| >
| > - Lazy Data
| >
| >These are callables which are deferred until explicitly
| >referenced, at which point they are resolved and stored
On Monday 12 December 2005 18:17, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
> The greatest lacking functionality in Zope 3 seems to be the lack of a
> 'lazy' namespace, which is used primariliy for the 'SESSION' object in
> Zope 2. How do people feel about adding that to Zope 3?
Not without a proposal. :-) I have no
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 07:14:08PM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
| >Here's what is in the docstring for HTTPRequest:
| >
| > - Lazy Data
| >
| >These are callables which are deferred until explicitly
| >referenced, at which point they are resolved and stored as
| >applicatio
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 06:25:53PM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
| Sidnei da Silva wrote:
| ...
| >Sounds good to me. By quickly looking Zope 3's requests have mostly
| >the same methods and features from Zope2's. However sems like most
| >methods were renamed for consistency (e
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 06:25:53PM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
| Sidnei da Silva wrote:
| ...
| >Sounds good to me. By quickly looking Zope 3's requests have mostly
| >the same methods and features from Zope2's. However sems like most
| >methods were renamed for consistency (eg: supports_retry ->
| >s
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
...
Sounds good to me. By quickly looking Zope 3's requests have mostly
the same methods and features from Zope2's. However sems like most
methods were renamed for consistency (eg: supports_retry ->
supportsRetry).
There are a number of things I can think of off the top o
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 04:53:11PM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
| >I am not 100% sure this is what you had in mind, but basically i've
| >broke down the 'publish' method from ZPublisher.Publish into the
| >methods of IPublication, and it seems to have mapped quite well with
| >some minor exceptions.
|
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 09:19:39AM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
| >| Note that the Z3 publication framework splits functionality
| >| currently provided by the Z2 publisher into a publisher and a
| >| publication object. An initial step might be top come up with
| >| a Z2 publ
Another update:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 04:18:48PM -0200, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
| I haven't gotten around to implementing the traverseName method, which
| will need some deep surgery on ZPublisher.BaseRequest.
This is done now.
| Now, what I have in mind moving forward is to replace the code in
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 09:19:39AM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
| >| Note that the Z3 publication framework splits functionality
| >| currently provided by the Z2 publisher into a publisher and a
| >| publication object. An initial step might be top come up with
| >| a Z2 publication object that works
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 07:18:05AM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
| We should proceed by getting Z2 and Z3 to use a common
| publisher, presumingly based on the Z3 publisher. This common
| publisher should:
|
| - Be well documented and tested.
|
| - Use WSGI for HTTP
|
| - Be
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 07:18:05AM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
| We should proceed by getting Z2 and Z3 to use a common
| publisher, presumingly based on the Z3 publisher. This common
| publisher should:
|
| - Be well documented and tested.
|
| - Use WSGI for HTTP
|
| - Be backward compatible with
We should proceed by getting Z2 and Z3 to use a common
publisher, presumingly based on the Z3 publisher. This common
publisher should:
- Be well documented and tested.
- Use WSGI for HTTP
- Be backward compatible with Both Z2 and Z3
- Should be highly customizable through components. This wi
On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 07:56:00PM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
| Sidnei da Silva wrote:
| >Best I can tell, it should be pretty doable no?
|
| The key is to move to WSGI. Zope 3's publisher now uses
| WSGI and so does twisted. For HTTP, the Zope 3 pubisher isn't
| based on twisted, it is based on WS
Stephan Richter wrote:
SchoolTool does not use ZEO, the installations are quite small, i.e. for
schools with at most 5000 students.
Curious.
I can't imagine working with ZODB and not being able to do out-of-band
processing on other machines, or processes, and not being able to do
"zopectl
On Dec 9, 2005, at 8:11 AM, Dario Lopez-Kästen wrote:
... all I asked for was for ZEO-bits not to be forgotten in the
flurr of development activity. Obviously that was a mistake,
because I now find myself in counter-example-territory.
Hi Dario. No need to worry: ZEO is essential to ZC, to
Dario Lopez-Kästen wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
All I was saying is that SchoolTool is serious Zope 3 work and we are
not using ZEO. You asserted that all serious Zope work would use ZEO.
I did?
No, Chris Withers did, Stephan must have mis-read the attributions.
This has been a message fro
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Friday 09 December 2005 07:59, Dario Lopez-Kästen wrote:
SchoolTool does not use ZEO, the installations are quite small, i.e. for
schools with at most 5000 students.
OK. I fail to get your point, though (and I am not trying to be
sarcastic or anything rude here).
On Friday 09 December 2005 07:59, Dario Lopez-Kästen wrote:
> > SchoolTool does not use ZEO, the installations are quite small, i.e. for
> > schools with at most 5000 students.
>
> OK. I fail to get your point, though (and I am not trying to be
> sarcastic or anything rude here).
All I was saying
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Friday 09 December 2005 06:02, Chris Withers wrote:
Dario Lopez-Kästen wrote:
I don't expect other people for me to fix this for me, but I suggest
that this be noted somewhere where it can be seen, because ZEO is quite
important for us running larger sites.
I would
On Friday 09 December 2005 06:02, Chris Withers wrote:
> Dario Lopez-Kästen wrote:
> > I don't expect other people for me to fix this for me, but I suggest
> > that this be noted somewhere where it can be seen, because ZEO is quite
> > important for us running larger sites.
>
> I would say ZEO is e
Dario Lopez-Kästen wrote:
I don't expect other people for me to fix this for me, but I suggest
that this be noted somewhere where it can be seen, because ZEO is quite
important for us running larger sites.
I would say ZEO is essential for all serious Zope work. I have to admit
to being pretty
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
...
Hm, maybe you are talking about the publisher. :)
Yes, I was. Sorry for the confusion.
I don't think it was anyone's fault.
In which case, I expect this all to be controlled via adapters, so
what you suggest should be possible. In any case
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
I wonder whether a similar approach as the one taken for the Twisted
server migration is possible. There, if you have an instance running
on ZServer an upgrade will not cause the switch to Twisted, since
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
I wonder whether a similar approach as the one taken for the Twisted
server migration is possible. There, if you have an instance running
on ZServer an upgrade will not cause the switch to Twisted, since
your startup script
Dario Lopez-Kästen wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 08 December 2005 08:29, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
What's the situation with ZEO then? The ZEO 'zrpc.client' uses
ThreadedAsync.register_loop_callback(), which is a evil monkeypatch to
asyncore. I haven't seen that change recently, so I
Chris Withers wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
I wonder whether a similar approach as the one taken for the Twisted
server migration is possible. There, if you have an instance running
on ZServer an upgrade will not cause the switch to Twisted, since your
startup script still refers to the old s
Has anyone verified that ZEO doesn't work when using the twisted server? Has
anyone
noted any negative symptoms? I expect that ZEO does still work, although in a
less
than optimal way.
Jim
Dario Lopez-Kästen wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 08 December 2005 08:29, Sidnei da Silva
Dario Lopez-Kästen wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 08 December 2005 08:29, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 08:18:49AM -0500, Stephan Richter wrote:
| On Thursday 08 December 2005 07:06, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
| > Just one thing that struck me right now. ZServer uses
Chris Withers wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
I wonder whether a similar approach as the one taken for the Twisted
server migration is possible. There, if you have an instance running
on ZServer an upgrade will not cause the switch to Twisted, since your
startup script still refers to the old s
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 08 December 2005 08:29, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 08:18:49AM -0500, Stephan Richter wrote:
| On Thursday 08 December 2005 07:06, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
| > Just one thing that struck me right now. ZServer uses medusa/asyncore
| > and twist
On Thursday 08 December 2005 08:29, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 08:18:49AM -0500, Stephan Richter wrote:
> | On Thursday 08 December 2005 07:06, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
> | > Just one thing that struck me right now. ZServer uses medusa/asyncore
> | > and twisted has it's own 'ma
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 08:18:49AM -0500, Stephan Richter wrote:
| On Thursday 08 December 2005 07:06, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
| > Just one thing that struck me right now. ZServer uses medusa/asyncore
| > and twisted has it's own 'main loop'. How do they play together in
| > Zope 3? Or they dont?
|
On Thursday 08 December 2005 07:06, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
> Just one thing that struck me right now. ZServer uses medusa/asyncore
> and twisted has it's own 'main loop'. How do they play together in
> Zope 3? Or they dont?
They don't. Either you use ZServer or you use Twisted, but not both. So if
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 09:38:32AM +, Chris Withers wrote:
| Stephan Richter wrote:
| >I wonder whether a similar approach as the one taken for the Twisted
| >server migration is possible. There, if you have an instance running on
| >ZServer an upgrade will not cause the switch to Twisted, si
Stephan Richter wrote:
I wonder whether a similar approach as the one taken for the Twisted server
migration is possible. There, if you have an instance running on ZServer an
upgrade will not cause the switch to Twisted, since your startup script still
refers to the old server code. You explici
On Wednesday 07 December 2005 10:51, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Agreed with Andreas. I also agree with Jim that it makes sense to be
> ambitious. I suspect we'll end up with a two-pronged approach --
> introduce the Zope 3 publisher with as much backwards compatibility we
> can provide, but also make
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
The most important project here, IMO, is to rewire Zope 2
to use the Zope 3 publisher. And, of course, to update the
Zope 3 publisher with features from the Zope 2 publisher that
are missing from the Zope 3 publisher (e.g. streami
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 7. Dezember 2005 10:29:16 -0500 Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We need it. We also need a single publisher. We are (almost) at
the beginning of a new development cycle. We should be ambitios
and try to make it possible to use the Zope 3 puublisher in Zope 2
*a
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 7. Dezember 2005 10:29:16 -0500 Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We need it. We also need a single publisher. We are (almost) at the
beginning
of a new development cycle. We should be ambitios and try to make it
possible to use the Zope 3 puublisher in Zope 2
--On 7. Dezember 2005 10:29:16 -0500 Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We need it. We also need a single publisher. We are (almost) at the
beginning
of a new development cycle. We should be ambitios and try to make it
possible to use the Zope 3 puublisher in Zope 2 *and* provide backward
Chris Withers wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
The most important project here, IMO, is to rewire Zope 2
to use the Zope 3 publisher. And, of course, to update the
Zope 3 publisher with features from the Zope 2 publisher that
are missing from the Zope 3 publisher (e.g. streaming).
+10
Please don't
On Tuesday 06 December 2005 19:56, Jim Fulton wrote:
> The most important project here, IMO, is to rewire Zope 2
> to use the Zope 3 publisher. And, of course, to update the
> Zope 3 publisher with features from the Zope 2 publisher that
> are missing from the Zope 3 publisher (e.g. streaming).
F
Jim Fulton wrote:
The most important project here, IMO, is to rewire Zope 2
to use the Zope 3 publisher. And, of course, to update the
Zope 3 publisher with features from the Zope 2 publisher that
are missing from the Zope 3 publisher (e.g. streaming).
+10
Please don't anyone write a "new zop
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
Hi there,
There's a couple of mad brazilian pythoneers that might hang out
together early in January in some hidden beach somewhere, and one of
the proposed tasks for working on (of course, powered by caipirinha)
was to take a stab at replacing Zope 2's ZServer/ZPublisher
Hi there,
There's a couple of mad brazilian pythoneers that might hang out
together early in January in some hidden beach somewhere, and one of
the proposed tasks for working on (of course, powered by caipirinha)
was to take a stab at replacing Zope 2's ZServer/ZPublisher by Zope
3's Twisted/Publi
47 matches
Mail list logo
