Albertas Agejevas wrote:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:06:38PM +0200, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Albertas Agejevas wrote:
Currently, in the generic case, Zope 3 raises a ComponentLookupError
in zope.app.publication.http line 74, and a 500 response is served.
I can't find that particular line
Christian Theune wrote:
Hi,
* Stephan Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050420 15:59]:
On Wednesday 20 April 2005 09:42, Florent Guillaume wrote:
Gh Why oh why ? The document is now totally unreadable, except
by reading a generated .ps or .pdf. That's not the way to go for
documentation :(
Ok.
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Hello all,
I'm proud to announce that a second book on Zope 3, Web Component
Development with Zope 3, is officially out now. It is the ideal
companion to Stephan Richter's expert Developer Handbook, serving as a
general introduction to Zope X3.0 from a beginner
Godefroid Chapelle wrote:
Jim, some other people and I argued that this kind of automation is
bad anyway and instead of introducing more translation magic, TAL
shouldn't do any automatic translation at all.
So, in my opinion, do_insertText_tal() should raise a
DeprecationWarning if it
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Saturday 07 May 2005 14:39, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Removed all cases of bogus use 'i18n:translate'
I think most of these cases are not at all bogus. See below.
I already told Dimitry, which triggered his recent mail. He will fix this,
once the discussion
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Friday 06 May 2005 10:11, Dmitry Vasiliev wrote:
Opinions?
Dimitry, I am sorry. There was already a papal's edict on the issue:
http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope3-dev/2004-September/012186.html
That means, message ids must be translated explicitely using i18n:translate.
Chris Withers wrote:
Hi All,
Zope 2 has the nice ability to allow you to override Products.
For example, I just found a bug in ZCTextIndex which will need fixing,
so between now and 2.7.7, I can just run with a patched ZCTextIndex
product in my instance home without having to worry about
Roger Ineichen wrote:
See our implementation of nested source directories at:
http://svn.tiks.org/viewcvs/Tiks/trunk/src/tiks/publisher/browser/
This implementation doesn't support a boolean, because perhaps you won't use
all
subfolders of your resource. e.g. use some external javascript
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Sunday 05 June 2005 09:35, Jim Fulton wrote:
- What's the deadline for this?
Well, um, Stephan was hoping to make the beta today. :)
I don't know if we can treat the absense of DAV locking as a bug and
get it in after the beta.
No, that would be a feature. So we
Jim Fulton wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Sunday 05 June 2005 09:35, Jim Fulton wrote:
- What's the deadline for this?
Well, um, Stephan was hoping to make the beta today. :)
I don't know if we can treat the absense of DAV locking as a bug and
get
Five 1.1b released!
===
The Five team is happy to release Five 1.1b, a beta release for the
upcoming version 1.1 of Five. Compared to the 1.0 release, Five 1.1
brings a few more Zope 3 features to the Zope 2 world, such as
* Zope 3-style i18n (including fallback to existing
Benji York wrote:
Dmitry Vasiliev wrote:
The simplest solution is to change all translate(text) calls to
translate(text, default=text). I think we need to do it for 3.1 also.
So we'd either have to duplicate the message text, or place all text in
a variable first, and pass it as both
Dmitry Vasiliev wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Dmitry Vasiliev wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Dmitry Vasiliev wrote:
Hi Everyone,
In the most cases users of the translate() expect untranslated
string will be returned if no translation is performed. See for
example
Hi there,
with Zope X3.0 being integrated in Zope 2.8, a couple of bugfixes that
went into Zope 3 after the X3.0.0 release require us to release a
X3.0.1. If noone objects, I will tag X3.0.1 tomorrow night (CET). Please
get any checkins to the X3.0 branch in before that.
Some of the
Jim Fulton wrote:
Benji York wrote:
sureshvv wrote:
I am super excited!!
I'm glad to hear that.
Tell me how to do this for Zope2 (with Five?).
I have no idea. I don't have any experience with Five, but I don't
think it would take much work for someone to get it to work (perhaps
even
Acknowledgements
Much thanks to everyone who contributed to this release:
Jim Fulton, Stephan Richter, Bjorn Tillenius, Yvo Schubbe, Stuart
Bishop, Stefan H. Holek, Tim Peters, Dmitry Vasiliev, Gintautas
Miliauskas, Tres Seaver, Philipp von Weitershausen
Stephan Richter wrote:
- We need to become much better about fixing bugs. I think we should make Bug
Days a regular event.
+1
At first I was thinking that the last Friday of each month or something
would be a good idea, but hopefully a proposal-based development cycle
won't require that many
Hi there,
[Sorry for the cross-post, please CC replies to zope3-dev@zope.org only.]
a final Zope 3.1 release is approaching rapidly and it is still lacking
some important translations. Yes, you heard right, the Zope 3 management
interface is fully i18n capable and we would like to ask you to
Gary Poster wrote:
Have you ever written functional tests and been surprised that they get
security proxies around i18n Messages and MessageIDs in the tests, but
not in the server? I have. :-)
I'm not sure how often people encounter this, but I think I've heard
one other person describe
Fred Drake wrote:
On 8/8/05, Philipp von Weitershausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For compatability reasons, zope.app.security._protections and the
protect() function inside (though empty) should probably still exist for
at least another release because people might be using it in their own
tests
Sebastien Douche wrote:
I cannot upload my .po file with this fu*** site. How can I do ?
What do you mean you cannot? Are you not allowed or does it not work?
It's a known problem that the site sometimes takes a little while to
integrate an uploaded file into the database. The longest I've seen
Christian Theune wrote:
waiting for some unit tests I saw that mail and went over the terms in
there. I don't know the state of discussion but I'd prefer some
different terms:
Thanks for your comments, Christian. I wonder if this is the right place
to discuss. Maybe a comment to the wiki page
Marcello Lussana wrote:
hi,
I'm trying to install zope3 on debian: the package zope3 exist but libc6
is missing. I've tried to install libc6-dev but the error with zope3
still.
what can I do? should I install from source?
Yes, for now please install from source (3.1rc1). The Debian
Julien Anguenot wrote:
Ok the problem is the doctype declaration on top of the macro files that
force the tal interpretor to enter html mode and as far as I understand
you can't have mix moded macros.
Exactly. I forgot to mention that in my follow-up...
Btw, doctype declaration is something
Tonico Strasser wrote:
Fred Drake schrieb:
On 8/31/05, Philipp von Weitershausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
HTML4 mode exists because
...
- it enforces some HTML document type (as mentioned before); no idea why
it does that
I'm just guessing you're referring to its understanding
Derrick Hudson wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 03:54:45PM +0200, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
| Julien Anguenot wrote:
[...]
| If you change the header like this then it can be succesfully included :
|
| ?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8?
| html xmlns=http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml
Tonico Strasser wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen schrieb:
I'm not so sure that this is such a good thing. ZPT seems to enforce
*guidelines* that not everyone might want to follow (e.g. if I want to
output my XHTML as c14n or something similar). For me, ZPT's HTML mode
just does too many
Tonico Strasser wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen schrieb:
Tonico Strasser wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen schrieb:
Tonico Strasser wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen schrieb:
I'm not so sure that this is such a good thing. ZPT seems to enforce
*guidelines* that not everyone might
Julien Anguenot wrote:
I think it's time to sketch out a proposal :).
+1 Do you want to write it ?
I can start, then you, Tonica and others can pad it out in the wiki.
Philipp
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub:
Hi there,
while I very much like Zope 3's understanding security and abstract
concepts of interactions, participations, and principals, I've never
really grown to love the word principal. It might be easier to
understand for native speakers, but I've certainly had problems to grok
and remember(!)
Tonico Strasser wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen schrieb:
...
So, I would like to give principal a better name. How about
participant? After all, a principal _participates_ in an interaction
through a participation (e.g. an HTTP request). Participant should also
be pretty easy to translate
Marc Rijken wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Monday 12 September 2005 12:31, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
So, I would like to give principal a better name. How about
participant? After all, a principal _participates_ in an interaction
through a participation (e.g. an HTTP request
Craeg Strong wrote:
It seems the word Principal is ubiquitous in security-related
software: see
Microsoft dot Net Principal [1]
java.security.Principal
Kerberos [2]
GSS API
[1]
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/cpref/html/frlrfsystemsecurityprincipal.asp
Roger Ineichen wrote:
Hi principals
*shrug* I'm a user :).
Since principal doesn't seem to be a common term in IT speak either,
translators repeatedly have their problems with it. In German, for
example, we came up with Nutzungsberechtigter which is just an
arbitrary choice and doesn't even fit
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
is the order of the list of interfaces implemented by an object subject
to internal changes?
I have identified the need for such a pattern:
iface = object.interface()
with:
class someObject(object):
implements(IMainInterface, ISecondaryInterface,
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
is the order of the list of interfaces implemented by an object subject
to internal changes?
I have identified the need for such a pattern:
iface = object.interface()
with:
class someObject
Chris Withers wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
- BUT, given that it's a big change and likely invalidates a lot of dead
tree material, I'd suggest we just stick with principal and be done with
it ;-)
If that last point were the doctrine by which previous refactorings had
Steve Alexander wrote:
I think so too. But I whould not try to explain a PAU (pluggable
authentication utility) without to use the word principal. I think
using the words user or participant for a principal in this case is
not a good idea.
Perhaps the scope of the PUA can be extended to have a
Steve Alexander wrote:
Interesting. It looks to me like you're calling a User object what the
CMF calls a Member.
Sure. Does the CMF have any users who aren't members?
Well, I think so. At least the CMF has different objects for members
than for users (the former come from the CMF Member
Uwe Oestermeier wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
I ended up creating a first class User object too. See also my note
about being able to access these in content space.
The same holds for my project. Shouldn't they be part of the framework if
so many applications need them?
I smell a
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
does alsoProvides() check for interfaces already listed?
No, but directlyProvides does. Issuing the same directlyProvides(...)
call twice has the same effect as issuing it once.
Philipp
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Sebastien Douche wrote:
What is the deadline to finish translation ?
There's no specific deadline for translations. They will not be part of
3.1.0 final anyway, but we will make a 3.1.1 soon after a decent number
of translations have been finished.
Thanks for your work so far.
Philipp
Five 1.1 released!
==
The Five team is happy to release Five 1.1 final. Compared to the 1.0
release, Five 1.1 brings a few more Zope 3 features to the Zope 2
world, such as
* Zope 3-style i18n (including fallback to existing Zope 2 i18n
machinery),
* Zope 3 to Zope 2
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
Stateful workflow was, initially, as much an experiment as anything
else. Now it seems to be a common source of questions. Is anyone
actually
working on it? Does it have a champion? If not, then I suggest it
is a trap that we should get rid of.
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Wednesday 05 October 2005 06:05, Jim Fulton wrote:
Stateful workflow was, initially, as much an experiment as anything
else. Now it seems to be a common source of questions. Is anyone actually
working on it? Does it have a champion? If not, then I suggest it
is a
Tonico Strasser wrote:
Martijn Faassen schrieb:
Hi there,
I'm very curious to see what work was done on a Zope 3 website at the
Neckar sprint. Can someone send a report to the list?
The plan has been to migrate all the Wiki pages from zope.org to zope3.org.
Interesting, and a bit sad to
Benji York wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
b) It is exactly the opposite of what we've been trying to do for the
last couple of months: convergence, not divergence!
I think that differentiating Zope 3 from Zope 2 is a good thing.
Sure. I never said that their differences
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Here's my 2 cents, even if I might be too late (but hey, when should
I have brought this up?): I think it's a *bad* idea to host Zope 3 on
its own site, because:
a) It will be yet another systems we need maintainance volunteers
for. As it seems we don't even have
Fred Drake wrote:
On 10/11/05, Philipp von Weitershausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- a ZWiki on a bare Zope 2 is set up within minutes
A ZWiki as found on the current zope.org is unusable, so I'll presume
you mean an up-to-date ZWiki, which I expect is much nicer.
Of course.
Again (and I'm
Stephan Richter wrote:
Log message for revision 39056:
Fixed bug from Philipp. Are you working on Windoze?
Now I see what you meant. Thanks... (I'm on MacOSX which is using HFS+,
another case-capable but -ignorant filesystem)
Changed:
U
Grégoire Weber wrote:
while modeling the external API of an application I'd like to use the
tagged value feature of the interface implementation.
It seems to me that handling tagged values is implemented inconsequently.
It would be nice if tagging attributes and interfaces would look the
Fred Drake wrote:
On 10/29/05, Philipp von Weitershausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
just a quick question: the 'zpkgsetup' in the root Zope3 directory was
replaced by buildsupport/zpkgsetup and is a dead chicken waiting to be
removed, right?
That was removed when the setup.py was modified
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Wednesday 02 November 2005 03:51, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
In fact, we *require* all text files (.py, .pt, .zcml, .txt) to have the
svn:eol-style property set to native, so that Windows checkouts have
Windows line-endings and Unix checkouts have Unix line
be
nested). Thanks to Sidnei da Silva for the initial development back
in March, Lennart Regebro and Philipp von Weitershausen for bringing
it up to date for inclusion into Five 1.2.
* Improved event support
Five can now make standard Zope 2 containers (aka object managers)
send Zope 3
Sven Schomaker wrote:
Hi all,
I found a tiny bug in the page directive handler page in
zope.app.publisher.browser.viewmeta.py. Handling allowed attributes
seems to be buggy:
SNIP
_handle_allowed_attributes(_context, allowed_interface, permission,
Florent Guillaume wrote:
I've posted a blog entry about object event dispatching which tries to
details that complex process:
http://blogs.nuxeo.com/sections/blogs/florent_guillaume/2005_11_10_object-event-dispatching
Also on Monday I posted an entry detailing how these object events can
Jim Fulton wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
in zope/app/form/__init__.py there is a method used to translate
widget labels that passes zope as a domain. This means that
labels that are not message ids get the zope domain. At best, this
hides i18n bugs. At worst, this will lead to undesired
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Florent Guillaume wrote:
I've posted a blog entry about object event dispatching which tries to
details that complex process:
http://blogs.nuxeo.com/sections/blogs/florent_guillaume/2005_11_10_object-event-dispatching
Also on Monday I posted an entry detailing
Andreas Jung wrote:
--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
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?
Didn't Florent delete the branch? Obviously he did not as I assumed.
So in this case Philipp
Paul Volpato wrote:
I have a template that simply displays 'Hello World' and in the
zcml I have declared the page as zope.Public. But when I go to the
pages address I have to authenticate. If I authenticate the page
displays fine. But I can't seem to view it as an anonymous user.
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 10:16, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository
I am -1. If I could I would
Gary Poster wrote:
Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/
ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository
I already spoke with Philipp on IRC about this, but for the record,
and speaking personally, and very arguably selfishly: -1.
Roger Ineichen wrote:
Reading the response to this mail, I guess developer
working on existing Zope2 projects agree on this proposal.
And developer where build projects only based on Zope3
will not.
As somebody how don't know Zope2 I'm -1 on this.
I could repeat here what Martijn and I
Dominik Huber [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Stephan Richter wrote:
This may raise the contribution bar too high.
IMO that 's the most important point.
It raises the bar for Zope 3 developers a bit while lower the bar for Zope 2
developers
tremendously. I'm looking at the bigger picture and see it all
Julien Anguenot wrote:
Some Zope3 developers don't care about Zope2 and this is fair enough in
my point of view. Zope2 starts to get old and appears to be really a
mess compared to Zope3 in *2005*, plus it's not such an attractive
platform as it used to be couple of years ago. (Don't get me
Stephan Richter wrote:
I totally disagree. I, as a Zope 3 developer, have to learn Zope 2 and Five.
What makes you think so? I, for one, have not the slightest clue of how
zope.wfmc works.
Still I'm able to contribute to Zope 3, am I not? If I refactor something, I
might even
have to touch
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 22:01, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Messing up Zope 3 is specifically not the intention of this proposal. It
says so explicitly in the Your questions answered section.
Though it is not your intend, the merge would in fact mess up
Quoting Stephan Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 21:43, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
I know that you, Roger, have been contributing a lot to new exciting
features in Zope 3. In doing so, you would never have to worry about Zope 2
because Zope 2 will only
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 21:48, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Note that I also understand your motivation on voting -1 quite well.
Leaving everything as it is is simply the easier thing to do. For the
moment...
I will always vote -1 on such a move. I just
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 24 November 2005 00:05, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
I totally disagree. I, as a Zope 3 developer, have to learn Zope 2 and
Five.
What makes you think so? I, for one, have not the slightest clue of how
zope.wfmc works
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 24 November 2005 00:25, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Quoting Stephan Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This would be Zope 3's death blow
as we know it, because it would stall Zope 3 for several months.
Why would it stall Zope 3 development?
Because
Roger Ineichen wrote:
What makes you think so? I, for one, have not the slightest
clue of how zope.wfmc works.
Still I'm able to contribute to Zope 3, am I not? If I
refactor something, I might even
have to touch zope.wfmc, but for the most part this could be
very superficial.
That's
Chris McDonough wrote:
I really, really appreciate Phil taking the time to propose this no
matter what happens.
Chris, I won't bother you with a detailed answer (esp. to some points that were
not quite
correct about Zope 3 not caring about backward compat). I just wanted to say
that I also
Roger Ineichen wrote:
Btw, do we really count developer where are voting but never
contributed to the z3 trunk? I think normaly yes. But this is a
proposal where I think should be up to the Zope3 developer
to decide.
Uh, why only Zope3 developers? This affects the whole Zope community!
Jim Fulton wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository
I love this idea!
Ok.
But I think it's still a bit too early to pursue it.
Perhaps so. Other
Rocky Burt wrote:
Anyone know if there is any plan to add a toplevel products folder in
the zope svn repo like there currently is in zope's cvs repo? I know
this has held up a few products from going from zope CVS to SVN.
I don't think a separate Products folder is is necessary. Just make
Jim Fulton wrote:
There are a number of reasons we needed IResult:
- We want to be able to adapt existing output, especially
string output and we needed an interface to adapt to.
I see. I presume this is for the reason you state below, namely to be able to
customize
the setting of the
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.
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Florent Guillaume wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Zope 2.8 *is* actually interpolating and translating message ids
correctly *without* i18n:translate already. I think that this is the
same as Zope 3's (deprecated) behavior.
The problem is when 'structure' is used in TALES. If this isn't
Jim Fulton wrote:
I still don't like the implicit translation of message ids,
I thought like that, too. You really would want implicit translation of
message ids, though, not because implicitness is the right choice here,
but because of general separation of concerns. This is along the same
Stephan Richter 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 was going to write a similar proposal for 3.3 as well. I think we should
simply get rid of skins and pretend they
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Wednesday 07 December 2005 09:47, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
If I understand you correctly, you just propose to keep layers and get
rid of skins while I roughly propose to do it the other way around. I
really don't see a big difference :).
The difference
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Wednesday 07 December 2005 16:33, Dominik Huber wrote:
Phillip's Proposal:
Furthermore, I propose to remove the |IDefaultLayer| interface. We've
been using the |default| layer as a connotation of always being
available unless overridden by a more specific layer.
Jim Fulton wrote:
When presenting users with ordered text (e.g. sorted lists of options),
simply sorting Unicode strings doesn't provide an ordering that
users in a given locale will find useful. Various languages have
text sorting conventions that don't agree with the ordering of
Unicode
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Monday 12 December 2005 02:53, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Basically, it now proposes to go one step further: Layers and skins will
always be simple interfaces extending IBrowserRequest. The only difference
between skins and layers is that only skins
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Monday 12 December 2005 16:29, Dominik Huber wrote:
1. The brand *skin* and *layer* are fairly common and they are
reflecting two logical uses cases. At a first glance the usage for a
layer type is not given, but the layer concept is still interesting to
build
Steve Alexander wrote:
I would suggest to register the
layers like skins using a ILayerBrowserType interface:
interface
interface=.interfaces.I18NFeatures
type=zope.publisher.interfaces.browser.IBrowserLayerType
/
It is simple to create a zcml directive specifically
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 06:15, Steve Alexander wrote:
I understand from this discussion that registering layers is needed only
for certain ZMI things, to be implemented later on. So, I guess the
ZCML will be implemented later on, or not implemented later on. In
Thomas Lotze wrote:
after having posted this to what I guess is the wrong list (all hail gmane
group names...) and having received no answer, I'll repost it here:
I noticed that zope.app.file.File does not inherit from
zope.app.container.contained.Contained. This does not stop a file from,
Please see http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope3-dev/516. Looking for
comments.
Thanks,
Philipp
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Gary Poster wrote:
This is not pytz's fault: it wasn't designed to work the way that the
format module is using it, as Stuart points out following Philipp's 'XXX'.
Just for the record: The XXX comment is all Stuart's, I just fixed the
spelling of picklable at some point. Maybe I should have
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Florent Guillaume wrote:
I have a strange thing in Zope 2.8 and Zope 2.9 I never noticed.
{'-C': ''} is present in REQUEST.form for a GET request without arguments.
A simple script showrequest with return
Jim Fulton wrote:
The __bases__ attribute indicates that a layer builds on other layers.
In that case, the base layers will be setUp before the layer and torn
down after the layer (assuming that the layer and base layers support
tear down.)
So, just to get this straight, a layer's setUp or
Alexander Limi wrote:
This reminds me of a thing Steve Alexander and myself talked about when
working together on a project using Zope 3 a while back:
One of the ugliest and most error-prone parts of TAL is its handling of
multiple attributes:
a tal:attributes=href some/url;
sites (only that they can be
nested). Thanks to Sidnei da Silva for the initial development back
in March, Lennart Regebro and Philipp von Weitershausen for bringing
it up to date for inclusion into Five 1.2.
* Improved event support
Five can now make standard Zope 2 containers (aka object
Jim Fulton wrote:
12 months seems like a good interval to me, not too long to be overly
burdensome on the developers, but not so short as to be overly
demanding of users.
As much as BBB code annoys me personally, I think maintaining a
minimum compatibility window is necessary for an
Brian Sutherland wrote:
Since we are close to the release, I felt compelled to ask before I did
this. Could I revert 39890 [1] for the 3.2 release?
It seems that phillip finished zpkg's module support some time ago [2].
(I ask as this is causing me headaches doing the Debian packaging for
Hi,
I just noticed that the descriptions of Zope 3 mailinglists in
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo aren't ideal. Currently is says:
Zope3-dev Discuss development of and for Zope3
Zope3-users Users of Zope 3
I think it should say something along the lines of:
Zope3-dev
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
1 - 100 of 605 matches
Mail list logo
