Stephan Richter wrote:
[snip]
So you think it is better to loose the existing Zope 3 developers in
anticipation of more community involvement? This would be Zope 3's death blow
as we know it, because it would stall Zope 3 for several months. Honestly, I
rather have less exposure and keep the co
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository
Some comments after reading this thread:
This may very well be not the right time for this codebase merge to
happen --
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 16:41, Martin Aspeli wrote:
I think there needs to be a solution for making quick, preferably
TTW customisation of UI templates.
[snip]
You should have a look at CPSSkins for Zope 3 (developed by the Z3ECM
Hi there,
Roger Ineichen wrote:
[snip]
I really think we should stop draw a vision where we will get a
on cklick migration for custom projects. Then this is what people
normaly expectt if we speak about a migration path.
What vision is this? I don't think anybody has been proposing this
visi
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
[snip]
It is a bit like this: the zope2 community wants the zope3 technology
and zope3 wants the zope2 community.
I like this analysis. :)
I think the question about the technology should be treated as such on a
technical level, by bridging the technical gap (Five,
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
my impression is that if you want TTW editing you'll have to do it on
an application level using what's available in the framework
(utilities, ZPT, ...) Zope3 allows you to do this already and in a
much cleaner way than with zope2.
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
[snip]
I think you're mixing the notions of "community" and of "community of
interests".
I don't think that the goal is to merge communities, the goal is to make
good software and not have different entities fight on framework
technologies. It is to stir common *int
Jim Fulton wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
...
People keep telling Zope2 developers that the inclusion of Zope3
doesn't mean you have to touch it, if you don't use it it is just
inert code that won't cause any change in your Zope2 development style.
Hee hee. And they believed it? Do they
Florent Guillaume wrote:
I'd like to do a few simple fixes to events in Zope 3.2 before it's too
late:
[snip]
Please give me your opinion on this quickly
+1
Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.o
Chris McDonough wrote:
On Nov 24, 2005, at 8:37 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
I recall a slightly different discussion I was involved in. I
remember Zope 2 core developers worrying about the inclusion of Five
in Zope 2.8; they were worried they'd need to maintain its codebase.
I was o
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 11:03:35PM +0800, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
I'd love to participate in some sprints on these.
Me too.
PyCon Dallas 2006 is only 3 months away and would be a great opportunity
for such sprints. There's nothing about Zope here yet:
http://wi
Hi there,
Last week I switched Silva to use Five's backport of Zope 3 i18n
behavior instead of PlacelessTranslationService:
http://faassen.n--tree.net/blog/view/weblog/2005/12/02/0
Today I ran into some issues. The issue is that Zope 2's page template
engine doesn't have the same behavior as
Dmitry Vasiliev wrote:
[snip]
* currently you can translate any string (not only a message id) like this:
In this case the string will be automatically converted to message id
and then translated. I think we definitely shouldn't translate any
string, only message ids.
This is an interestin
Jim Fulton wrote:
I still don't like the implicit translation of message ids, but I'll
bow to the majority opinion. This really needs to be run by the ZPT
and Zope lists as well.
If we do this, then it would be tempting to deprecate allowing
i18n:translate to be used in combination with tal:c
Hi there,
An amendment on the behavior in Zope 2.8 + Five 1.2; it's different than
I thought and actually this is quite a relief to me (though there are
still problems).
Zope 2.8 *is* actually interpolating and translating message ids
correctly *without* i18n:translate already. I think that
Florent Guillaume wrote:
[snip]
I agree that the use case of having translations containing HTML is
important, and thus that we'll have to make sure do_insertStructure_tal
also does correct interpolation when faced with a MessageID.
I now have a monkey patch that patches in a two line modifica
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Florent Guillaume wrote:
[snip]
I agree that the use case of having translations containing HTML is
important, and thus that we'll have to make sure do_insertStructure_tal
also does correct interpolation when faced with a MessageID.
The Zope 3's TALGenerator/T
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
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Looking for your comments at http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/SimplifySkinning.
This is a follow-up proposal from http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope3-dev/444.
I rather like having the *concept* skin to talk about. While
implementation-wise things may become cleaner,
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
I'm about to write an xml importer for importing simple data
(properties, dictionaries). Exporting is easy, importing is trickier
because a parser is required.
Is there any prefered framework for doing such things in zope3 (zope2)?
CMFSetup uses sax, GenericSetup us
Andreas Jung wrote:
I'm about to write an xml importer for importing simple data (properties,
dictionaries). Exporting is easy, importing is trickier because a parser
is required.
Is there any prefered framework for doing such things in zope3 (zope2)?
Sax or DOM...it depends on the usecase an
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
Sax or DOM...it depends on the usecase and the algorithmic approach
you take. Sax is fast but you have to build your own datastructures,
DOM is slow, takes a lot of memory but it gives you a tree to perform
any fancy operation on it..
now I've
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Wednesday 07 December 2005 09:15, Martijn Faassen wrote:
In various use cases, for instance Silva, there's a class of users that
just wants to select from a list of skins installed for their site, and
has no knowledge of how they're implemented. You don'
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
Benji York wrote:
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
I was talking about a toolkit because it seems that most of the time
there's a cohesion between a web framework, its community, and a js
toolkit
I would hate to see Z3 create its own JS toolkit.
+1
While it may be useful to have some glue in JS that ex
Benji York wrote:
Florent Guillaume wrote:
Myself I absolutely love the approach taken by CrackAjax
(http://www.aminus.org/blogs/index.php/phunt/2005/10/06/subway_s_new_ajax_framework)
It's funny you mention that. I was intrigued by that too, but I can
only characterize his implementatio
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
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
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
Christian Theune wrote:
I propose to disable the comment functionality on the wiki pages for the
Zope 3 developer Wiki.
+1
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Hi there,
Christian Theune wrote:
a) Can we agree on a target group for the Zope 3 wiki? Can it be "core
developers" only?
The problem is that the only link we have been giving out to the whole
world whenever Zope 3 is announced somewhere is to that developer wiki.
I think we really really
Jim Fulton wrote:
Jeff Shell wrote:
I understand why this is happening, but it's (obviously) not what I
want to have happen. I want MY skin layer's declaration of
'contents.html' to win out. It actually works for all container types,
so maybe I need to declare it for a root Zope container inte
Christian Theune wrote:
giving recommendations about security, we advice everyone to put their
communication on protected lines. E.g. use HTTPS.
As we are targetting Zope 3.3, I think twisted can be the recommended
configuration option for Zope to run with.
Agreed.
How do you feel about the
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
> Or am I wrong in even imagining this would be desirable?
I think so. If there are custom views for more specific interfaces,
it is likely those custom views provide features that your generic
view doesn't. It would be a bit unkind
Jeff Shell wrote:
On 12/15/05, Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
One troublesome scenario I can imagine is that if I make my total
skin in Zope 3.n, it works, and then Zope 3.n + 1 is released and
it has a more specific view registered for some content object that
I'
Roger Ineichen wrote:
[Christian]
Otherwise this function is likely to become a performance killer, as
I'd have to go all over the place to remove stuff.
We do this everytime we delete a object. This is done with subscribers
and dispatching events to sublocations if a ObjectRemoveEvent get f
Roger Ineichen wrote:
[Martijn goes into why this might be slow]
Yes you are right. Do you have another idea?
A fairly drastic one, unfortunately -- catalog all role and permission
assignments and run a query as soon a user is removed.
Hm, perhaps another idea would involve the timestamp o
Jeff Shell wrote:
I was using it in some custom views for HurryFile based images. I've
removed it since I started testing our code against Zope 3.2. Right
now I just return the hurryfile binary data with a return statement
(one big chunk), but am looking forward to knowing how to return long
outp
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jeff Shell wrote:
I was using it in some custom views for HurryFile based images. I've
removed it since I started testing our code against Zope 3.2. Right
now I just return the hurryfile binary data with a return statement
(one big chunk), but am looking forwa
Jeff Shell wrote:
Yes, it's hurry.file. What's Tramline?
http://www.infrae.com/newsitems/tramline_0_4_release
http://www.infrae.com/products/tramline
http://faassen.n--tree.net/blog/view/weblog/2005/11/11/0
Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope3-dev mailing l
Hi there,
I just noticed something that is not exactly right: zope.formlib, even
though it's sitting in the 'zope' package, depends on zope.app. We need
to work towards making it only depend on stuff in zope, likely by
starting to move things that are reusable from zope.app into zope.
I've b
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
I think we have a lot to gain if we can get a common pool of widgets
shared beyond just Zope. I think the widget system in particular, and
probably also zope.formlib, are amenable to independent reuse with
some work, and I think we should look into
Hey,
Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]
I'm guessing that this is an issue because you install
Zope's into site-packages and you don't want a Zope installed
package to clobber a package that is separately packaged. Is that right?
The normal way to install Zope is in it's own directory. In this case,
a p
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
While it's true that this is normal for you and me, I think the cause
of "zope is just a library" is much helped if we *also* consider it
normal for Zope to be installed into site-packages.
I'm not convinced that Zope is "ju
Jim Fulton wrote:
Christian Theune wrote:
[snip]
Is this intentional?
Yes. self is never proxied.
I'll just note as a data-point that this surprised me as well. I noticed
that some things in Zope 3 weren't giving me authorization errors as I
expected, even though as I was swamped in them
Hey,
First, I'd like to thank you and everyone involved in the Zope 2 and
Zope 3 releases for making this time-based release in what I consider to
be a smashing success. Thanks for all the hard work! Things were late a
bit, some things are imperfect, but we in the community are already
feeling
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
[snip OS flamewar in the bud] :)
Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Jim Fulton wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
...
I think 2.9.0 is the _real_ 2.9 beta which will be widely used by ppl :-)
I could be wrong, but if we stick to a 6-month release cycle for feature
releases, I don't think there is going to be much appetite for bug-fix
releases, except in extreme cases,
Jim Fulton wrote:
One issue though is that I want to replace ZConfig with a ZConfig
format for zcml. (This would include making ZCML extensible to accept
any other format.) The user experience would be the same, but
extending it would be a lot easier than extensing ZConfig. I plan to
make a pr
Jim Fulton wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Wednesday 18 January 2006 11:27, Martijn Faassen wrote:
How do you assemble releases 'from releases'? I'm not sure I
understand that. You mean make a Zope 2 release using a Zope 3
release?
I'll note that SchoolTool great
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
...
How do you assemble releases 'from releases'? I'm not sure I
understand that. You mean make a Zope 2 release using a Zope 3 release?
No, I mean using eggs. Zope should be broken into separate projects
with their own eggs. A Zop
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Wednesday 18 January 2006 19:09, Jim Fulton wrote:
You know my position concerning the repository and the release; I'd
prefer them to be kept as similar as possible to simplify the release
process. I hope we can go in that direction. It also makes things more
predictab
Stephan Richter wrote:
[svn reflecting egg dependency structure]
That would work for me. If it resolves the risk and is still pretty automated,
SVN checkout or even calling make, then it is fine by me. The others have
also pointed out the egg development mode.
Right, I didn't know of that, but
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
...
What if we can create in SVN the equivalent of what would be an egg +
its dependencies for checkout, using externals? I know Jim said he
doesn't want to use externals, but I'm thinking in that direction.
You'd have one SVN directo
Jim Fulton wrote:
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
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Another use case, probably mostly in the context of Five, it's nice to
have an inclusive release of Zope 3 in Zope 2. The goal of reducing
the amount of code included in Zope 2 sounds nice in theory, but it
stops Five developers from exposing Z
Jim Fulton wrote:
See:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ZConfigAndOtherFormatsForZCML
Comments and volunteers welcome.
The use case of experimenting with different formats could also be
approached using a pre-processor approach for ZCML. That ZCML is an XML
dialect makes such a thing easier, as
Martin Aspeli wrote:
[snip]
Also, I assume there's a DTD or XML Schema for the ZCML syntax, which would let
such tools validate and auto-complete ZCML syntax - a valuable way to save time
if you're not intimately familiar with the syntax.
I've done this in the past. A long time ago I created a
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
I'd be in favour of switching zope.conf to an XML-based format as
well, personally.
That would be a separate proposal. It's not within the bounds of the
proposal under discussion.
No, I think the proposal under discussion has implications and
Shane Hathaway wrote:
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 p
Jim Fulton wrote:
See:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ZConfigAndOtherFormatsForZCML
Comments and volunteers welcome.
After thinking about it for a little bit, -1.
Firstly, I'm interested in experimenting with alternative syntaxes for
ZCML. I'm however not convinced that the proposal is a prod
Fred Drake wrote:
On 1/23/06, Sidnei da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I suspect ZConfig was designed after the apache config format. I also
suspect you haven't configured much Apache yourself.
Indeed, Apache configuration files were a major influence, and the
intended audience is substant
Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]
Huh? Geez, my proposal must have been really unclear. I'm not proposing
replacing ZCML files with ZConfig files. I'm proposing leveraging the ZCML
engine and especially the system for extensibility for handling ZConfig
files
Yeah, I read some of the thread, which see
Andreas Jung wrote:
--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 whe
Andrew Sawyers wrote:
1.
On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 18:29 +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
And the intended audience of ZCML is a very different audience -
developers versus sysadmins.
I'd have to say, I belived quite the opposite. There are specific
references to Admins being pa
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alexander Limi wrote:
[snip]
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).
Replacing it with Five/Zope 3 i18n is one way to
Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]
I think that the way the server and app are integrated needs to be
rethought.
I think we need to look at how to leverage Paste Deploy in Zope.
I hate to mention this with all of the discussion about ZConfig, but
we should probably consider using PasteDeploy as an alter
Shane Hathaway wrote:
[snip]
I think I'm starting to grasp the XML division among Zope developers.
ZConfig schema definitions use a conventional style of XML with
deeply nested elements, text nodes, and no namespaces, while ZCML
uses its own style with minimal nesting, many attributes, and many
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote at 2006-1-26 10:16 -0500:
but ZCML meta directives and
schemas are so easy to use.
I do not yet know ZCML...
In my experience it is indeed fairly easy to extend ZCML; it's a pretty
nice system that way.
When I have read your book I was scared
Jim Fulton wrote:
I've posted a proposal to simplify local component management at:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/LocalComponentManagementSimplification
Comments and questions are welcome.
I like the proposal.
I'm trying to figure out what this means exactly:
"""
Registries may place restrict
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 02 February 2006 11:50, Martijn Faassen wrote:
or this content object (that is a site), when it's installed into the
ZODB (like a CMFSite or a Silva Root), please also install the following
local utilities (catalog, intid utility, etc).
I have al
Adam Groszer wrote:
Hello,
I had some time to finalize the widgets overview.
You can download it from here in various formats:
http://www.zope.org/Members/adamg/widget
Wow, thanks, this looks really cool!
Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope3-dev mailing
Gary Poster wrote:
[snip lots of cool stuff]
Great, more stuff to play with! :)
Just saw zope.file; this begs to be combined with hurry.file's smart
upload feature, where the server retains the file so that validation
feedback forms work with files.
ZC has released many other useful standalo
Jim Fulton 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 month to may and November from June and
December. This m
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Monday 06 February 2006 06:13, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Is this stuff intended to end up in the zope core eventually? If so,
what steps will need to be taken? I imagine this also ties into the eggs
story, but the question on the zope core perhaps still stands - what
Chris McDonough wrote:
BTW, how impending is "impending"? Days, weeks, months? Anybody know?
On Feb 6, 2006, at 8:40 AM, Benji York wrote:
My first thought is to consider how the impending charter of the Zope
Foundation influences things.
Good question. My response to this would be two
Gary Poster wrote:
[snip a few things that we think would be nice and useful for the packages]
Sure. I'd love to. I'm happy if I at least get the stuff open-
sourced, though. Life is full of compromises.
I understand the spirit in which these were donated to the community,
and it's apprec
Hi there,
Just to drop a note that I think a discussion about a potential brand
name for Zope 3 is far less important than actually fixing our website
and presenting Zope 3 (and Zope 2 for that matter) in a better way.
Perhaps we can better redirect our energies to that than to have long
(bu
Hi there,
Gary Poster wrote:
[competition]
+1. I think the requirement to have enough people submitting is very
important, though. No competition anounced unless we get some idea that
we'll actually have enough competitors, otherwise we end up looking
silly ("what happened to the Zope marketin
Martin Aspeli (sent by Nabble.com) wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
If we do manage to build a new website and are a good way done with
it, *then* is the time to discuss possible branding options.
... except if that website is to incorporate a given brand and have a
big launch. :)
Which is
Max M wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Alternatively, we could use our energy to actually work together on a
new website instead of competing. There's a zope-web mailing list,
after all, so go and talk there. This would have my preference.
If you want to fix the Zope 2 website at the same
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Yes. Rest assured my ambition is to keep ambitions as low as possible.
:) Otherwise nothing will happen.
The front page of Zope.org doesn't show the activity around Z3 at all.
That wouln't cost anything to start to add a few z3 links in
Joel Moxley wrote:
[snip]
These are good points. I'm not convinced myself yet we should leave
zope.org as is and do the marketing for Zope 2 - I think Zope.org is
currently mostly anti-marketing for whatever Zope we're talking about.
That said, getting community interest in making something n
Alexander Limi wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 00:32:52 -0800, Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Like it or not, Zope (2) seems to have a lot of stigma out there; Zope
3 has been around a while. In actual fact, for a while I thought Zope
3.x was still just unfinished vapourware, waiting fo
Hey,
No, the marketing talk should stay wherever it is. Only the people who
want to fix the marketing situation by working on building a better
zope.org should go to zope-web.
If you want to make sure that the new zope.org is going to work with
your marketing suggestions, you'd better help o
Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
I'm not sure shuffling the hype and Zope 3 marketing conversations to
zope-web is a good idea. I'm not trying to fix zope.org (eek), and
I'm not trying to improve the Zope 2 image (though that would be nice
too). I, and I think others, are
Gary Poster wrote:
[snip]
I think the split-up contest--response 2--that Joel Moxley proposed on
the list and others proposed privately to me sounds good.
I'm not really thrilled about that idea. Marketing needs to be a unified
message, and if you split it up you'll likely end up with a hod
Gary Poster wrote:
[snip]
You say this in your other message:
"""
Somehow people don't seem to be discussing other activities much in the
recent threads, such as the writing intro text, of tutorials, designing
and presenting screencasts, gathering links and other information.
"""
Seems lik
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Yet again looking for comments, this time at:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/OneNamespaceForZCML.
-1.
Prefixing 'browser' directives in the tag names to me is a big warning
bell that you really do want to use different namespaces. Another
example of the namespace
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 2/13/06, Philipp von Weitershausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yet again looking for comments, this time at:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/OneNamespaceForZCML.
What happens if you want to add your own statements? Should you still
do that
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
- You do not argue how the decision-making process is "highly inconsistent".
Fair enough. I will update the proposal later. Supper first :).
- I do not understand what's so bad about coming up with your 3rd-party ZCML
directives. The
Hey,
Good comments, Tres, thanks.
Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
As we have learned that we can reduce nearly all component tasks to
adapters and utilities, many tasks revolving around registration and
configuration of policy also only involve adapters and utilities. By using
those "elementary" directiv
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 2/13/06, Philipp von Weitershausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,
looking for your comments at
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReducingTheAmountOfZCMLDirectives :)
This is a "formal" follow-up on my blog post on ZCML a while back
(http://www.z3lab.org/sections/blogs/ph
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
Uhm. -1, actually. I think getting things out of ZCML is a good idea,
but I think this shoots slightly beside the goal. This proposal aims
mostly at getting rid of statements that can be done with other
statetements, but using more lines.
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
I've being working on integrating Balazs Ree's CTAL interpreter recently
(added tests, fixes, etc.). CTAL is the equivalent of TAL but for
javascript.
I just googled around for this, and couldn't find it, but I'm intrigued.
Any link?
A few years ago on a whim I s
501 - 596 of 596 matches
Mail list logo
