Hi,
zope.schema defines how a schema can be validated, defines errors and
provides a way to validate single fields.
I think we should add a function to validate a given schema on a given
class. This should include constraints and invariants:
validateSchema(IMySchema, myobject) [or alike]
On 8/20/07, Christian Zagrodnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we should add a function to validate a given schema on a given
class. This should include constraints and invariants:
I do presume you mean object, rather than class, as your example implies.
validateSchema(IMySchema, myobject)
On Friday 17 August 2007 17:32, Gary Poster wrote:
However, it's worth noting to clarify this discussion that buildout
is being successfully used to install a wide variety of software on
*nix systems (I know of Red Hat, Ubuntu, and OS X). This includes
software that does not have eggs
Hi,
Am Montag, den 20.08.2007, 08:59 -0400 schrieb Fred Drake:
On 8/20/07, Christian Zagrodnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we should add a function to validate a given schema on a given
class. This should include constraints and invariants:
I do presume you mean object, rather than
On 2007-08-20 14:59:52 +0200, Fred Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On 8/20/07, Christian Zagrodnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we should add a function to validate a given schema on a given
class. This should include constraints and invariants:
I do presume you mean object, rather than
Christian Theune wrote:
From my latest experience and research of when to use exceptions and
when to use return values I'd say let's not use an exception.
+1
--
Benji York
Senior Software Engineer
Zope Corporation
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Previously Christian Theune wrote:
Hi,
Am Montag, den 20.08.2007, 08:59 -0400 schrieb Fred Drake:
On 8/20/07, Christian Zagrodnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we should add a function to validate a given schema on a given
class. This should include constraints and invariants:
Monday, August 20, 2007, 3:05:45 PM, Stephan Richter wrote:
Windows is pretty different in this respect. You really want to use an
installer, which means you get a wizard. People in Windows expect this
behavior and want it. It is quiet ignorant to ask them to use eggs instead.
Hackers on
Hoi
I just figured, that the browser:menuItem cannot be registered for
classes. But you can with browser:page. I think if a browser:page can
be registered for a class a menuItem should support this, too.
Also a browser:page for=someclass menu=... / will break on
getting the menu items
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
That would be confusing though: I would expect the result of a method
that checks validaty to return something that evaluates to True if
everything is valid. Code like this just messes up my brain:
if not zope.schema.validate(obj, IMySchema):
print Everything
Christian Zagrodnick wrote:
Hoi
I just figured, that the browser:menuItem cannot be registered for
classes. But you can with browser:page. I think if a browser:page can be
registered for a class a menuItem should support this, too.
Also a browser:page for=someclass menu=... / will break on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Fred Drake wrote:
On 8/20/07, Christian Zagrodnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we should add a function to validate a given schema on a given
class. This should include constraints and invariants:
I do presume you mean object, rather than
Christian Theune wrote:
Hi,
Am Montag, den 20.08.2007, 08:59 -0400 schrieb Fred Drake:
On 8/20/07, Christian Zagrodnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we should add a function to validate a given schema on a given
class. This should include constraints and invariants:
I do presume you mean
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Christian Theune wrote:
Hi,
Am Montag, den 20.08.2007, 08:59 -0400 schrieb Fred Drake:
On 8/20/07, Christian Zagrodnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we should add a function to validate a given schema on a
Am Montag, den 20.08.2007, 16:05 +0200 schrieb Philipp von
Weitershausen:
This is exactly what I would suggest: The function should return a list
of validation errors. Similar semantics are used in zope.formlib's
validate() method. I agree with Wichert's objection about being a bit
On 20 Aug 2007, at 16:12 , Benji York wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
This is exactly what I would suggest: The function should return a
list of validation errors. Similar semantics are used in
zope.formlib's validate() method. I agree with Wichert's objection
about being a bit
On Aug 20, 2007, at 7:48 AM, Christian Zagrodnick wrote:
Hi,
zope.schema defines how a schema can be validated, defines errors
and provides a way to validate single fields.
I think we should add a function to validate a given schema on a
given class. This should include constraints and
On Aug 20, 2007, at 9:45 AM, Christian Zagrodnick wrote:
Hoi
I just figured, that the browser:menuItem cannot be registered for
classes. But you can with browser:page. I think if a browser:page
can be registered for a class a menuItem should support this, too.
Also a browser:page
Adam Groszer wrote:
Monday, August 20, 2007, 3:05:45 PM, Stephan Richter wrote:
Windows is pretty different in this respect. You really want to use an
installer, which means you get a wizard. People in Windows expect this
behavior and want it. It is quiet ignorant to ask them to use eggs
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Friday 17 August 2007 17:32, Gary Poster wrote:
However, it's worth noting to clarify this discussion that buildout
is being successfully used to install a wide variety of software on
*nix systems (I know of Red Hat, Ubuntu, and OS X). This includes
software that
Martijn Faassen wrote:
It would be nice if one could install Zope 3-based *applications* using
a Windows installer. But to ask developers to install all the *library*
dependencies separately using click-through wizards is rather strange.
As a recovering Windows developer, I agree.
--
Benji
Hey,
Thanks for noticing. I think we need to adopt a routine of building
Windows eggs whenever we make a new release of a package that has C
extensions. There aren't that many packages like that (about a dozen)
and they hopefully aren't going to have that many releases in the future.
I've
Benji York wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
It would be nice if one could install Zope 3-based *applications*
using a Windows installer. But to ask developers to install all the
*library* dependencies separately using click-through wizards is
rather strange.
As a recovering Windows developer,
I'm about to make a new release of zc.buildout that uses a different
policy for selecting distributions. In particular, by default,
zc.buildout will now prefer final distributions over non-final ones.
If there are final and non-final distributions that satisfy a
requirement, buildout
Jim Fulton wrote:
I'm about to make a new release of zc.buildout that uses a different
policy for selecting distributions. In particular, by default,
zc.buildout will now prefer final distributions over non-final ones.
Yay!
--
Benji York
Senior Software Engineer
Zope Corporation
Hey,
On 8/20/07, Philipp von Weitershausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 20 Aug 2007, at 18:48 , Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
How solid are MinGW eggs?
So far nobody can tell me, except that Andreas Jung, Hanno
Schlichting and a couple of other guys seem to be able to use MinGW
well.
That
Jim Fulton wrote:
I'm about to make a new release of zc.buildout that uses a different
policy for selecting distributions. In particular, by default,
zc.buildout will now prefer final distributions over non-final ones.
If there are final and non-final distributions that satisfy a
On Aug 20, 2007, at 2:02 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
I'm about to make a new release of zc.buildout that uses a
different policy for selecting distributions. In particular, by
default, zc.buildout will now prefer final distributions over non-
final ones. If there are
On Aug 20, 2007, at 2:18 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Aug 20, 2007, at 2:02 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
I'm about to make a new release of zc.buildout that uses a
different policy for selecting distributions. In particular, by
default, zc.buildout will now prefer final
Am Montag, den 20.08.2007, 14:27 -0400 schrieb Jim Fulton:
No, I'm wrong, I'm going to back these changes out with a b30 release
and then release them with a 2x release.
Will the 2x release be picked up automatically because the stable policy
isn't in 1x and it tries to update itself?
Oh
On Aug 20, 2007, at 1:18 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
I'm about to make a new release of zc.buildout that uses a
different policy for selecting distributions. In particular, by
default, zc.buildout will now prefer final distributions over non-
final ones. If there are final and non-final
On Monday 20 August 2007 09:45, Christian Zagrodnick wrote:
Should we fix that?
Yes, or just deprecate the menu stuff. ;-) The default menu framework was
insufficient in every real-world project I have worked on. Menu items based
on the context just do not work.
Regards,
Stephan
--
Stephan
On Monday 20 August 2007 20:02, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Aug 20, 2007, at 7:57 PM, Stephan Richter wrote:
On Monday 20 August 2007 09:45, Christian Zagrodnick wrote:
Should we fix that?
Yes, or just deprecate the menu stuff. ;-) The default menu
framework was
insufficient in every
On 8/20/07, Benji York [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I like getValidationErrors. It's use would probably normally look
something like this:
...
Both look good to me.
Ok, agreed, for reasons people have already given.
-Fred
--
Fred L. Drake, Jr.fdrake at gmail.com
Chaos is the score upon
34 matches
Mail list logo
