[Zope3-dev] Re: December release post-mortem
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 either. >> >> I'm surprised that it included less. > > It was a bug, and I think some of it already got resolved (Philipp would > know more), but it wasn't noticed until fairly late, as during > development such dependencies are development. It included less due to an oversight on my side. I forgot to make the Zope 2 release depend on certain new zope.app packages that zope.app didn't already depend on. They were not included in Zope 2.9b1, but 2.9b2 quickly fixed that. It was my mistake. I don't think anything would've made it easier catching that mistake other than reports from the people. Also, it's a mute point now (please let's bury it!) as b2 already fixed it. While I got this email open, I'd like to quickly add my EUR0.02 as a summary of this thread: * Breaking Zope (3 that is) into subprojects is extremely useful. zope.testing was a good example, the next things should be zope.interface+zope.schema and zope.pagetemplate+zope.tales+zope.tal etc because there are actually standalone releases of these things or at least people using these things separately from Zope. * Moving things that aren't immanent to the Zope 3 application server out of zope.app is also a good thing. I suspect this is mostly a mechanical change (dropping the 'app' in the import name). Ideally this should indeed leave us with a zope.app that is so Zope3-specific that it isn't of any use for Zope 2. * We should indeed avoid having to include certain Zope 3 things into Zope 2 that don't make any sense in Zope 2. The whole zope.app.twisted machinery is an example. Currently we're not running zope.app tests in Zope 2 because we would have to stitch in twisted into Zope 2 svn! * Zope 2 should continue to use and provide as much Zope 3 functionality as Zope 3 does. This "policy" brought us zope.formlib to Zope 2.9 which is already being enjoyed by some Five developers! * We should get rid of vendor imports such as pytz, docutils and those testbrowser dependencies. Eggs will make this very trivial. We won't even be concerned about development mode or not because we're not modifying them anyways. I think the decision for time-based releases is a success, mostly because I already know when a new Zope release is to expected and roughly what features it'll bring. As someone who puts a lot of effort in Zope 3 documentation I find this extremely valuable as a planning asset. As for the December release itself, I'm not too impressed. On the Five/Zope 2 side of things it was more than people bargained for, namely the port of Five to Zope 3.2 and the packaging of Zope 2 with zpkg. It might be due to the fact that this was our first time-based release and people were just used to releases being postponed when they didn't find the time to commit to a schedule. Obviously this we can't continue like this in the future. If we move the release up to May (I'm +1) then feature freeze is in April. That effectively leaves us not much more than two months worth of time for work on Zope 3.3/2.10. What I want to say with this is that the right time to work on Zope 3.3/2.10 is *now*, not some time in the summer. Philipp ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: Notifications not appearing on zope3-checkins
Shane Hathaway wrote: > After I checked in code into the Zope 3 repository this week, I never > saw corresponding notifications posted to the zope3-checkins mailing > list. I don't think I saw notifications for my checkins during 2005, > either. > > Note that notifications have a "from" header matching the email address > of the person checking in. My wild guess is that: > > 1. The zope3-checkins list disallows posts from people not subscribed to > the list. Correct. It actually discards the messages, I think. Perhaps it should just reject them. > 2. Subversion thinks my address is still [EMAIL PROTECTED], but that > address no longer exists. Subversion will take whichever email address you gave for your zope.org account. > If I'm right, the list is rejecting posts from anyone who doesn't happen > to be subscribed. My suggestion is that checkin notifications should > have a generic "from" header like "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". Some other header can > have the email address of the person checking in. I strongly suggest that the Reply-To header would have the email of the original person in this case. Because then it'll still be easy to simply hit the "reply" button for check-in emails. Philipp ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 13:30:19 -, Rocky Burt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: However, there is another risk. If we support multiple formats then that means that a developer will have to understand all of them, because if he wants to use another package that uses format X but he is used to format Y, then he has to learn format X. Of course this issue has been discussed in the context of ZPT versus DTML a long time ago. I was about to make that same point. Having to know how to use two different configuration types makes getting started harder. But, another few points that I'd like are: - using (and only using) XML-based configuration files makes it much easier for people of other large systems (ie j2ee) who are starting out with zope feel much more at home and thus lowers the barrier omaf entry - I say this from personal experience - building applications or products that need to generate configuration files is much easier if the config files are XML-based - parsing and generating gets much easier Those are just two things that came to mind right away. I think Rocky makes an extremely good point. Apart from the rather moot "I don't like the way XML looks" argument, I can't see many arguments in favour of a Zope-specific format that does exactly the same thing as what now every book and article and tutorial covers. The fact that the rest of the world uses XML is also not insignificant. Zope 3 is a fairly hefty paradigm shift for those coming from other backgrounds, and anything to lower the entry barrier must be seen as a positive thing. Not that XML will magically make it easier (thought it may make it more familiar, and potentially be more compatible with existing toolchains), but the big danger is that some day you'll want to look at some tutorial or example or work with someone else's code (Chris W's code, say :-) that uses ZConfig or whatever else because said person didn't like XML for religious reasons. Yipes, new syntax, more learning curve. And totally unnecessary. I'm highly +1 for replacing things that currently use ZConfig with ZCML and highly -1 on making ZConfig an optional alternative to ZCML at the developer's whim. Focus on good, well-defined solutions, not multiple choices that only bring confusion, and keep big guns pointed away from feet. Martin, still trying to learn Zope 3 :) -- (muted) ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: ZCML bad ;-)
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 14:54:55 -, Shane Hathaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Chris Withers wrote: FWIW, I still hate ZCML for the following reasons: Everyone seems to agree on the direction suggested here: http://www.z3lab.org/sections/blogs/philipp-weitershausen/2005_12_14_zcml-needs-to-do-less I think that will resolve a lot of concerns. +1 There's only one thing that bothers me about that article: it calls the people who complain about ZCML either "Python purists" or "die-hard Zope 2 coders", when you and I are neither. We are Zope evangelists, and our concern is that the current ZCML is a significant barrier for others who want to learn and adopt Zope. Heh... I happen to know Philipp agrees with you there :) Martin (and current ZCML confuses me too) -- (muted) ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Notifications not appearing on zope3-checkins
After I checked in code into the Zope 3 repository this week, I never saw corresponding notifications posted to the zope3-checkins mailing list. I don't think I saw notifications for my checkins during 2005, either. Note that notifications have a "from" header matching the email address of the person checking in. My wild guess is that: 1. The zope3-checkins list disallows posts from people not subscribed to the list. 2. Subversion thinks my address is still [EMAIL PROTECTED], but that address no longer exists. 3. Mailman is bouncing my checkin notifications back to [EMAIL PROTECTED], so I never see the rejection notices, either. If I'm right, the list is rejecting posts from anyone who doesn't happen to be subscribed. My suggestion is that checkin notifications should have a generic "from" header like "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". Some other header can have the email address of the person checking in. Shane ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:58:52PM +0100, Dieter Maurer wrote: > Paul Winkler wrote at 2006-1-20 10:26 -0500: > > ... > >Does this mean we could potentially change zconfig options at > >runtime? > > What do you mean by that? > > You can already now change "zconfig" options at runtime > (you can modify the object returned by "getConfiguration()"). > > But usually, it will have little effect, because most > configuration options are read just once -- during startup. > For them, later modification will have no effect. Oh, OK. Thanks for clearing that up for me. -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
Jim Fulton wrote: See: http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ZConfigAndOtherFormatsForZCML Comments and volunteers welcome. Jim What is the fundamental difference between ZConfig and ZCML apart from the esthetic appearance that everyone seems to be so concerned with? I see that all the attributes in the ZCML format are presented as elements in the ZConfig format. what does this imply *semantically* to put the information in attributes as opposed to put it in elements? maybe a better balance is needed between full-fledge attribute-based design (ZCML) and full-fledge element-based design (ZConfig). there is an article about the element vs attribute distinction that might be worth reading. http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-eleatt.html /JM ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] December release post-mortem
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2006-1-19 19:37 +0100: > ... >I'm talking about a Zope 2 release including (most of) what's in a Zope >3 release, so that Five developers can work on exposing *that* in Zope 2 >too (which can then be part of the next Zope 2 release as we integrate >the newer Five in it). I very much like Jims idea: having a small core with the ability to add separately released extensions on demand. -- Dieter ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
Paul Winkler wrote at 2006-1-20 10:26 -0500: > ... >Does this mean we could potentially change zconfig options at >runtime? What do you mean by that? You can already now change "zconfig" options at runtime (you can modify the object returned by "getConfiguration()"). But usually, it will have little effect, because most configuration options are read just once -- during startup. For them, later modification will have no effect. -- Dieter ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
Paul Winkler wrote: On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:36:19AM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote: See: http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ZConfigAndOtherFormatsForZCML """...We'll register the options object as a utility. To the extent that we want to keep using an object like that, option handlers would save their data in this object. Application code would access data through this utility.""" Does this mean we could potentially change zconfig options at runtime? i.e. no server restart? That might be useful. I suppose. Of course, typically, these options are only read once in a run. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
Jim Fulton wrote: See: http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ZConfigAndOtherFormatsForZCML Comments and volunteers welcome. I like this proposal. It is likely to reduce the total amount of code. However, I want to be sure that consolidating engines is the real focus of the proposal. Converting XML files to ZConfig format doesn't seem like an interesting change. Shane ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
Stephan Richter wrote: On Friday 20 January 2006 07:36, Jim Fulton wrote: See: http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ZConfigAndOtherFormatsForZCML Comments and volunteers welcome. I am +1. However, there is another risk. If we support multiple formats then that means that a developer will have to understand all of them, because if he wants to use another package that uses format X but he is used to format Y, then he has to learn format X. Of course this issue has been discussed in the context of ZPT versus DTML a long time ago. I've already listed that as a risk. OTOH, if we only reimplement the ZConfig format with ZCML, we won't be introducing a new format. We'll just be eliminating an engine. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
Paul Winkler wrote: Does this mean we could potentially change zconfig options at runtime? i.e. no server restart? That might be useful. ...or dangerous and unpredictable, depending on your point of view... Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:36:19AM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote: > > See: > > http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ZConfigAndOtherFormatsForZCML """...We'll register the options object as a utility. To the extent that we want to keep using an object like that, option handlers would save their data in this object. Application code would access data through this utility.""" Does this mean we could potentially change zconfig options at runtime? i.e. no server restart? That might be useful. -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: ZCML bad ;-)
Chris Withers wrote: FWIW, I still hate ZCML for the following reasons: Everyone seems to agree on the direction suggested here: http://www.z3lab.org/sections/blogs/philipp-weitershausen/2005_12_14_zcml-needs-to-do-less I think that will resolve a lot of concerns. There's only one thing that bothers me about that article: it calls the people who complain about ZCML either "Python purists" or "die-hard Zope 2 coders", when you and I are neither. We are Zope evangelists, and our concern is that the current ZCML is a significant barrier for others who want to learn and adopt Zope. Shane ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Zope 3 startup message
Tres Seaver wrote: > Alexander Limi wrote: >>>Instead of printing: >>> >>>"2006-01-17 14:59:09 INFO Zope Ready to handle requests" >>> >>>at the end, could we have something like: >>> >>>"2006-01-17 14:59:09 INFO Zope Ready to handle requests on the >>>following ports:" >>> >>>and then a list of the ports it is running on? One of the classic >>>newbie gotchas (especially on Linux or other platforms not using the >>>Plone installer) is "Oh, it's running - but where? How do I connect to >>>it?". >>> >>>Zope tells you where to connect, but way too early in the output. > > > Let's fix the spew in PTS instead (which should be at BLATHER or DEBUG > level). +1 to both action items. I think we should fix the spew in PTS but we should also add the port connection information to the end to account for the inevitable rogue products that will spit out too much crap. - Rocky -- Rocky Burt ServerZen Software -- http://www.serverzen.com ServerZen Hosting -- http://www.serverzenhosting.net News About The Server -- http://www.serverzen.net ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
Stephan Richter wrote: > On Friday 20 January 2006 07:36, Jim Fulton wrote: > >>See: >> >> http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ZConfigAndOtherFormatsForZCML >> >>Comments and volunteers welcome. > > > I am +1. > > However, there is another risk. If we support multiple formats then that > means > that a developer will have to understand all of them, because if he wants to > use another package that uses format X but he is used to format Y, then he > has to learn format X. Of course this issue has been discussed in the context > of ZPT versus DTML a long time ago. I was about to make that same point. Having to know how to use two different configuration types makes getting started harder. But, another few points that I'd like are: - using (and only using) XML-based configuration files makes it much easier for people of other large systems (ie j2ee) who are starting out with zope feel much more at home and thus lowers the barrier of entry - I say this from personal experience - building applications or products that need to generate configuration files is much easier if the config files are XML-based - parsing and generating gets much easier Those are just two things that came to mind right away. - Rocky -- Rocky Burt ServerZen Software -- http://www.serverzen.com ServerZen Hosting -- http://www.serverzenhosting.net News About The Server -- http://www.serverzen.net ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] zope.schema.Orderable -- additional tests
On Thursday 19 January 2006 18:45, Shaun Cutts wrote: > Can/should I just put it in SVN? I'd say, check it in! :-) Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] X-zope-handle-errors header
On Thursday 19 January 2006 13:36, Chris Withers wrote: > What does setting this header actually do? It sets the handle_errors argument of the publish function to false. It is the only way we can communicate from functional tests to the publisher. Trust me, I explored several possibilities. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] ZCML bad ;-)
On Thursday 19 January 2006 13:45, Chris Withers wrote: > - the tags never have any content, that's a sign xml is the wrong solution Not true. All complex directives have sub-directives. > - if anyone has or does rebind xml namespaces, it causes confusion. > having to include the namespace definitions at the top of each file is > dead chicken most of the time. It's not a dead chicken at all. In every fairly advanced package I write I have at least 2, if not 3 or 4 different namespaces. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: Proposal: Enhance tracebacks in persistent logs
On Friday 20 January 2006 03:54, Chris Withers wrote: > Personally, I hope .zcml will eventually be forgotten as a historic > curiosity, but that would mean I have to actually implement zcml2conf, > and there's no danger of that happening any time soon ;-) I'll note that I prefer reading ZCML over ZConfig, even though I am not an XML lover. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
On Friday 20 January 2006 07:36, Jim Fulton wrote: > See: > > http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ZConfigAndOtherFormatsForZCML > > Comments and volunteers welcome. I am +1. However, there is another risk. If we support multiple formats then that means that a developer will have to understand all of them, because if he wants to use another package that uses format X but he is used to format Y, then he has to learn format X. Of course this issue has been discussed in the context of ZPT versus DTML a long time ago. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
See: http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ZConfigAndOtherFormatsForZCML Comments and volunteers welcome. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] December release post-mortem
Chris Withers wrote: ... On a side note, I see python now includes doctest.py, why are we still maintaining our own copy in zope.testing? doctest has been in Python for a long time, far longer than we've been using it. Now that we use it aggressively and are aggressively contributing to it, we usually need a newer version than is available in the Python release we're using. If Python had and used a packaging system, like eggs, this wouldn't be necessary. Someday. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: Proposal: Enhance tracebacks in persistent logs
Martin Aspeli wrote: ... and thus confuse all the people trying to learn Zope 3 by seeing two fundamentally different file formats that do exactly the same thing? Anyone trying to understand anyone else's code would have to learn both anyway. Yay. They actually look remarkably similar, there's just less empty xml elements in the .conf version. Jim's proposed work emphasises that point, I think... Personally, I hope .zcml will eventually be forgotten as a historic curiosity, but that would mean I have to actually implement zcml2conf, and there's no danger of that happening any time soon ;-) cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: Proposal: Enhance tracebacks in persistent logs
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 18:46:29 -, Chris Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'd love to see this At some point I want to do something that lets you optionally use .conf format instead of .zcml, I reckon the above would help but my foo is way too low right now to be able to help out with it :-S ... and thus confuse all the people trying to learn Zope 3 by seeing two fundamentally different file formats that do exactly the same thing? Anyone trying to understand anyone else's code would have to learn both anyway. Yay. Martin -- (muted) ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
