Hoi
the Zope 3.3 branch tests fail here:
Error in test test_persistentDeclarations
(zope.app.interface.tests.test_interface.PersistentInterfaceTest)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/sw/lib/python2.4/unittest.py", line 260, in run
testMethod()
File
"/Users/zagy/development/Zope3
It's failing with:
Failure in test /Users/zagy/development/Zope32/src/zope/app/ftests/doctest.txt
Failed doctest test for doctest.txt
File "/Users/zagy/development/Zope32/src/zope/app/ftests/doctest.txt", line 0
--
File "/Users
Hi,
Am Montag, den 05.03.2007, 07:10 -0800 schrieb Martin Aspeli:
>
>
> Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> >
> > On 5 Mar 2007, at 09:48 , Christian Theune wrote:
> >> I've added myself too.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >> I'd be interested in having some ZODB problem,
> >> although I'd like not to
Christian Theune-2 wrote:
>
> It's on the ZODB trunk already for a while. The current trunk is going
> to be ZODB 3.8 and was already released as an alpha. And it will be the
> ZODB that ships with Zope 2.11.
>
Wonderful :-)
> I'm currently writing up a proposal for an extended Blob versio
Hi,
I'm writing up a proposal for the ZODB to make even more efficient Blob
handling possible.
This includes not copying the data from an uploaded file, but using a
`link` operation when possible.
However, the Zope 3 publisher currently uses the default implementation
of the cgi module's FieldS
Christian Zagrodnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hoi
>
> the Zope 3.3 branch tests fail here:
>
>
> Error in test test_persistentDeclarations
> (zope.app.interface.tests.test_interface.PersistentInterfaceTest)
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "/sw/lib/python2.4/unittest.py", line 260
On Wednesday 07 March 2007 11:37, Christian Theune wrote:
> Does anybody feel like this would be a bad idea?
As long as you do not monkey patch the existing code, this is totally fine.
Regards,
Stephan
--
Stephan Richter
CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student)
Web2k - Web
Am Mittwoch, den 07.03.2007, 11:55 -0500 schrieb Stephan Richter:
> On Wednesday 07 March 2007 11:37, Christian Theune wrote:
> > Does anybody feel like this would be a bad idea?
>
> As long as you do not monkey patch the existing code, this is totally fine.
*k*
No. I was talking about doing
On 3/5/07, Philipp von Weitershausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
a) mentors.
It'd be great if some of the Zope core committers would volunteer to
mentor a student. This doesn't mean you will definitely end up
mentoring one, just show your willingness.
Yeah, I could do that.
b) pro
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 07.03.2007, 08:03 -0800 schrieb Martin Aspeli:
>
>
> Christian Theune-2 wrote:
> >
> > It's on the ZODB trunk already for a while. The current trunk is going
> > to be ZODB 3.8 and was already released as an alpha. And it will be the
> > ZODB that ships with Zope 2.11.
> >
Christian Theune wrote at 2007-3-7 17:37 +0100:
>I'm writing up a proposal for the ZODB to make even more efficient Blob
>handling possible.
>
>This includes not copying the data from an uploaded file, but using a
>`link` operation when possible.
Is it possible at all?
Uploaded files end up in a
On 07.03.2007, at 17:37, Christian Theune wrote:
Hi,
I'm writing up a proposal for the ZODB to make even more efficient
Blob
handling possible.
This includes not copying the data from an uploaded file, but using a
`link` operation when possible.
However, the Zope 3 publisher currently use
Am Mittwoch, den 07.03.2007, 20:50 +0100 schrieb Dieter Maurer:
> Christian Theune wrote at 2007-3-7 17:37 +0100:
> >I'm writing up a proposal for the ZODB to make even more efficient Blob
> >handling possible.
> >
> >This includes not copying the data from an uploaded file, but using a
> >`link` o
Am Mittwoch, den 07.03.2007, 21:03 +0100 schrieb Bernd Dorn:
> On 07.03.2007, at 17:37, Christian Theune wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm writing up a proposal for the ZODB to make even more efficient
> > Blob
> > handling possible.
> >
> > This includes not copying the data from an uploaded file, b
Christian Theune <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreibt:
>This is how the dance looks like to do the link():
>
> >>> import tempfile, os
> >>> d = tempfile.NamedTemporaryFile()
> >>> os.path.exists(d.name)
> True
> >>> d.write('Test')
> >>> os.path.exists('/tmp/asdf')
> False
> >>> os.link(d.name, '/tmp/asdf
Am Mittwoch, den 07.03.2007, 21:12 +0100 schrieb Uwe Oestermeier:
> Christian Theune <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreibt:
> >This is how the dance looks like to do the link():
> >
> > >>> import tempfile, os
> > >>> d = tempfile.NamedTemporaryFile()
> > >>> os.path.exists(d.name)
> > True
> > >>> d.write(
Christian Theune <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreibt:
>
>Nope. It won't disappear if you link it again. And the link(src, dst)
>does move it to a 'save' location ;)
Again I'm not convinced because you cannot be sure that no other process
deletes the temp file.
In the following I simulate this with a os.s
Am Mittwoch, den 07.03.2007, 21:31 +0100 schrieb Uwe Oestermeier:
> Christian Theune <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreibt:
> >
> >Nope. It won't disappear if you link it again. And the link(src, dst)
> >does move it to a 'save' location ;)
>
> Again I'm not convinced because you cannot be sure that no oth
Christian Theune wrote at 2007-3-7 21:17 +0100:
> ...
>Nope. It won't disappear if you link it again. And the link(src, dst)
>does move it to a 'save' location ;)
You do not tell us, which "link" you mean.
Python's "os.link" creates a hard link which will only work
if source and destination are o
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Python's "os.link" creates a hard link which will only work
if source and destination are on the same file system.
...and is also not available on Windows.
--
Benji York
Senior Software Engineer
Zope Corporation
___
Zope3-dev mail
Christian Theune <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreibt:
>Nope this is not the correct simulation. Who except your application
>knows about /tmp/asdf? You have to simulate deleting d.name and then
>you'll see that /tmp/asdf does not disappear.
Ok, but what Dieter means is that the tmp dir as a whole is empt
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 07.03.2007, 21:37 +0100 schrieb Dieter Maurer:
> Christian Theune wrote at 2007-3-7 21:17 +0100:
> > ...
> >Nope. It won't disappear if you link it again. And the link(src, dst)
> >does move it to a 'save' location ;)
>
> You do not tell us, which "link" you mean.
Sorry. I m
Am Mittwoch, den 07.03.2007, 15:59 -0500 schrieb Benji York:
> Dieter Maurer wrote:
> > Python's "os.link" creates a hard link which will only work
> > if source and destination are on the same file system.
>
> ...and is also not available on Windows.
Hrn. I tried to point you all to the upcoming
Am Mittwoch, den 07.03.2007, 22:04 +0100 schrieb Uwe Oestermeier:
> Christian Theune <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreibt:
> >Nope this is not the correct simulation. Who except your application
> >knows about /tmp/asdf? You have to simulate deleting d.name and then
> >you'll see that /tmp/asdf does not di
Previously Christian Theune wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 07.03.2007, 21:31 +0100 schrieb Uwe Oestermeier:
> > Christian Theune <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreibt:
> > >
> > >Nope. It won't disappear if you link it again. And the link(src, dst)
> > >does move it to a 'save' location ;)
> >
> > Again I'm not
Am Donnerstag, den 08.03.2007, 00:32 +0100 schrieb Wichert Akkerman:
> Previously Christian Theune wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, den 07.03.2007, 21:31 +0100 schrieb Uwe Oestermeier:
> > > Christian Theune <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreibt:
> > > >
> > > >Nope. It won't disappear if you link it again. And the
I can't reproduce them on my 3.3 checkout either.
Am Mittwoch, den 07.03.2007, 08:54 -0800 schrieb Ross Patterson:
> Christian Zagrodnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hoi
> >
> > the Zope 3.3 branch tests fail here:
> >
> >
> > Error in test test_persistentDeclarations
> > (zope.app.interfac
hi.
i think i found a bug in zope.app.cache.ram
if an entry is added to the cache without having a miss first (for example to
cache in advance some long calculation that is going to be looked up in the
near furutre anyway), then the miss counter for that object doesn't exist,
and getStaistic
On 7 Mar 2007, at 12:24 , Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 3/5/07, Philipp von Weitershausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
a) mentors.
It'd be great if some of the Zope core committers would
volunteer to
mentor a student. This doesn't mean you will definitely end up
mentoring one, just sho
Christian Theune wrote:
Hi,
[modified slightly from a similar proposal to zope3-dev to match Zope
2's publisher]
I'm writing up a proposal for the ZODB to make even more efficient Blob
handling possible.
This includes not copying the data from an uploaded file, but using a
`link` operation whe
Giovannetti, Mark wrote:
Hello,
Using zope 3.3.0 so i18nextract may have changed.
I found that i18nextract didn't quite meet my needs.
So I changed it. The following diff shows the changes.
Basically, I wanted to allow individual py/zcml/pt
extractions to be possible.
Originally, python c
Note that one micro-optimization for PUT requests is to not use a
FieldStorage at all because the body is never mime-encoded anyway in
practice.
I have a monkey patch to do this now, which I turned into a patch for
the core, but took out because Phillipp whined at a sprint once. ;-)
Here
On 3/7/07, Christian Theune <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is how the dance looks like to do the link():
>>> import tempfile, os
>>> d = tempfile.NamedTemporaryFile()
>>> os.path.exists(d.name)
True
>>> d.write('Test')
>>> os.path.exists('/tmp/asdf')
False
>>> os.link(d.name, '/tmp/asdf
On 3/7/07, Philipp von Weitershausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Am I the only person here who immediately associated "link" with the
POSIX? Also, am I the only one who read "when possible" as "when on a
POSIX system where link is available", in other words, "when not on
Windows"? One starts to wo
On 3/7/07, Christian Theune <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I propose to create a small subclass to override the `make_file` method
to use `NamedTemporaryFile` instead of `TemporaryFile` to allow the file
being accessible from a filename so I can apply a `link` operation.
Notice: The FieldStorage exp
On 3/7/07, Benji York <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
> Python's "os.link" creates a hard link which will only work
> if source and destination are on the same file system.
...and is also not available on Windows.
os.link() isn't, but hard links are as long as you use NTFS [1].
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
> On 3/7/07, Philipp von Weitershausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Am I the only person here who immediately associated "link" with the
>> POSIX? Also, am I the only one who read "when possible" as "when on a
>> POSIX system wh
On 3/7/07, Uwe Oestermeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok, but what Dieter means is that the tmp dir as a whole is emptied from
time to time.
Not a likely scenario other than at reboot time or when a clueless
sysadmin clears it by hand. Automated /tmp cleaning takes file age
into account to avoi
38 matches
Mail list logo
