Paul Winkler wrote:
[snip]
Something looking like Nevow maybe?
Its template language looks kind of like ZPT without all the
fancy TALES expressions.
I'll also take a look at the Nevow to see whether we can get any ideas
about a Clarity frontend.
Regards,
Martijn
Hey,
I think the most sane would be:
Zope 2.8 - Zope 2.9 - Zope 2.x, for however many iterations it's
necessary. Zope 2 will grow some Zope 3 forward compatibility with Five,
but this depends on Five contributors. Right now, we're doing fairly
well and we hope this keeps up.
Zope X3.0 - Zope
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote: [snip]
[snip]
I've always said that we will provide support for
transitioning to Zope 3, being careful to say transition support
rather than backward compatibility.
And that's not what the Zope X3 release notes strongly imply, which is
again, my point
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
This is what settled in our mind as the plan. It may be where Stephan
got this idea. It is still interfering with the message coming from Zope
Corporation that it appears did undergo some shifts over time.
Whoah, that last sentence makes no sense, I mean something
Shane Hathaway wrote:
[snip]
I'm sure Fred is doing excellent work, but I'm having trouble seeing why
we need zpkgtools. Is it not sufficient to just python setup.py
install all of Zope 3? I've been doing that with Zope 3 Subversion
checkouts and Twisted, even though I actually use less than 10%
Stephan Richter wrote:
[snip]
I think of zpkgtools as a prototype for extensions that are necessary
for distutils.
Is it the Zope project's job to extend distutils, though? I mean,
developing something new is nice, but there's a lot of a new stuff on
our plate already, isn't there?
Overall,
Five 1.0 released!
==
The Five team is happy to release Five 1.0. Five is a Zope 2 product
that allows you to integrate Zope 3 technologies into Zope 2, today.
There are no big feature additions compared to Five 0.3, but does
include significant bugfixes, along with some minor
Jim Fulton wrote:
Julien Anguenot wrote:
Can we consider the inclusion of lxml or elementtre within the Zope3
core ?
Absolutely.
Cool!
Are the repective licenses, BSD and MIT-like an issue ?
Absolutely. :)
I would prefer that we include lxml and that it be ZPL.
That is, my hope is that Martijn
Benji York wrote:
Gintautas Miliauskas wrote:
Log message for revision 30377:
Fixed a typo.
-pThis probably because the class' module, +pThis probably because
the class module,
I don't think the apostrophe was misplaced, but there should probably be
an is in there. How about this:
Stephan Richter wrote:
[snip]
Then there are of course various Five-based projects, but I am not familiar
with them. Can anyone enlighten me here? Also, if I forgot any project,
please tell me about it! It does not have to be a commercial product either!
Concerning Five projects, one project
Hi there,
Since we keep running into snags and frustrations with the zope.app.form
package, we're checking out zc.page and see whether it could help us
any. We're going to try using it today.
We have some concerns though:
* the snapshot is probably aging as bugs get discovered and fixed in
Hi there,
I'm using zope.app.testing.functional.FunctionalTestCase to write
functional, Python-level tests for a Zope 3 application, and I just ran
into something that might or might not be a bug.
When the application code tested changed the site using setSite(), the
next test will still
Hi there,
in zope.app.catalog.attribute, there's the following functionality:
def index_doc(self, docid, object):
if self.interface is not None:
object = self.interface(object, None)
if object is None:
return None
value =
Hi there,
We just noticed that some objects were not being cataloged correctly.
After a lot of debugging, we noticed the following:
The IntId utility wouldn't find the unique id for an object when a
modified event was sent. As a result, it wasn't being indexed.
We figured out that there
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Christian Theune wrote: [snip]
I'm actually interested in what the plans/needs for zc.page are
to move into core. Maybe I/we can spend some time on bug fixing
...
Even if not in the core, it'd already help if this wasn't a
one-time snapshot
Fred Drake wrote:
On 7/7/05, Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hope that moving it into the zope package doesn't mean it will be only
maintained for Zope 3.2 (as it requires python 2.4). While I obviously
don't expect it to be released with Zope 3.1 I hope we can pull a
release
Tres Seaver wrote:
[snip]
I find the same pattern creeping into my work: content objects need to
be policy free, which means that they can't do things like emit
events, because whether and when to emit them is policy. For
instance, if your content objects have setter methods (or properties as
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
I noticed another possible oddness with zc.page.
[snip description]
Just pinging this thread; I'd still like to know whether this behavior
is considered a bug, and if so, how to go about fixing it. If not, is
there some way to accomplish what I want
Martijn Pieters wrote:
I'd like to update the horribly outdated version of docutils in the
Zope3 tree (version 0.3.0) to the latest resease (version 0.3.9).
+1
Regards,
Another Martijn
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub:
Hi there,
I'm trying to debug the security of a Zope 3 application (in Zope 3.1
beta) and I am having trouble getting ZOPE_WATCH_CHECKERS to work.
If I set it to 1, I expect to see information on which attributes on
which object are denied. I however see nothing whatever.
If I set it to a
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Friday 05 August 2005 09:46, Benji York wrote:
By my estimations(i hope i'm not wrong :) C version gives ~20-26% speed
up for different methods.
Running the functional tests for a Zope 3 based
Benji York wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
* after object creation but before the object is added,
various things are done to the object.
* authorization error: user cannot access various attributes.
If these things are done by subscribers, would using trusted subscribers
help?
I guess
Florent Guillaume wrote:
Does it work to just set __parent__ to the container? Or does the
zopesecuritypolicy require more accurate context?
I think that might work, though I've had previous problems with actually
being allowed to *set* the __parent__ to the container. :)
I would also be
Paul Winkler wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Missing powerful query concepts
---
Certain powerful query concepts like joins, available in a relational
setting, are missing. I've already run into a scenario where I wanted to
someting like this: given a bunch
Hi there,
I just saw this being changed in the wiki (by Fred Drake):
the new zope.formlib. - -- Reimplement file objects (for
Zope 2 or Zope 3 to take advantage of the new 'zope.formlib'
I'm curious to hear what this is about. I've been dealing with file
widgets in particular a lot
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2005-8-25 13:49 +0200:
... AdvancedQuery ...
I need to figure out the lazy sorting concept too and how to port it to
the Zope 3 catalog... I see elsewhere in the thread you also mention it
supports a simple form of joins, which is also very
Hi there,
Now that there's a plain catalog and an extent catalog, and while I was
implementing a 'not' operator for a query language, I ran into some
missing abstraction that would be convienient; a way to get all the
object ids that are indexed, preferably in the form of a IFBTree so I
can
Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]
It would be helpful if someone could explain the motivations behind
the extent catalog, by the way -- this information seems to be missing
in zc.catalog. Am I at all on the right track with my thinking on it?
What information?
Sorry for being unclear. I meant the
Gary Poster wrote:
On Aug 30, 2005, at 1:57 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
It would be helpful if someone could explain the motivations behind
the extent catalog, by the way -- this information seems to be
missing in zc.catalog. Am I at all on the right track with my
thinking
Hi there,
While the browser:page directive can take a content class for its 'for'
attribute (instead of an interface), the browser:defaultView directive
doesn't accept this. I tried changing the interface of the defaultView
directive so it also accepts classes, but that by itself does not
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
While the browser:page directive can take a content class for its
'for' attribute (instead of an interface), the browser:defaultView
directive doesn't accept this. I tried changing the interface of the
defaultView directive so
Hi there,
We're trying to hunt down a weird bug that is probably our own fault,
but it's pretty obscure, and we want to exclude the possibility that any
of this has to do with zc.catalog, which we're using (the SetIndex
component).
The version in the sandbox is 6 weeks old; have there been
Hi there,
I've just put the 'hurry' extension library for Zope 3.1 in the Zope 3
base. For commentary on what it's all about, see my blog entry:
http://faassen.n--tree.net/blog/view/weblog/2005/09/09/0
In brief, it contains the higher level query language I talked about
before, an advanced
Hey Z3ECMers,
I've just put the 'hurry' extension library for Zope 3.1 in the Zope 3
base. For commentary on what it's all about, see my blog entry:
http://faassen.n--tree.net/blog/view/weblog/2005/09/09/0
In brief, it contains the higher level query language I talked about
before, an
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey Z3ECMers,
[oops, wrong mailing list; will resend. sorry for people seeing this twice]
Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail
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
Hi there,
There doesn't appear to be a way to get the client's IP address from the
request. Zope 2 has a getClientAddr() on the request object that uses
_client_addr, which gets created like this:
if environ.has_key('REMOTE_ADDR'):
self._client_addr = environ['REMOTE_ADDR']
if
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Friday 30 September 2005 04:58, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Such an event however does not appear to be fired when an
UnauthenticatedPrincipal gets fired. This makes adding groups to such a
principal not so easy.
I think you
Jim Fulton wrote:
A better change would be to arrange for the root directory to be excluded
from the Python path. In general, any script we use should, by default,
exclude its directory from sys.path.
Maybe this only turns up if you have a package layout where the
__init__.py is in the same
Uwe Oestermeier wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
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?
We (Dominik Huber, Tonico Strasser, Gregoire Weber, and I) set up a
zope3org package (http://svn.zope.org/zope3org
Hey Philipp,
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
[snip]
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
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Tuesday 11 October 2005 09:36, Jake wrote:
Why not spend the time and energy making Zope.org a better place
than just moving it off to yet another under-developed and utilized
website?
zope.org has very different requirements than zope3.org. The reason
we want our
Reinoud van Leeuwen wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 03:53:23PM +0200, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Perhaps we can come up with a similar scenario as what we think is going
to happen with Zope 2 and Zope 3. Zope 2 is the old, hard to maintain
system here, Zope 3 the new cool system. We intend
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Tuesday 11 October 2005 08:57, Martijn Faassen wrote:
As goals for the site, at least the top level of it, I'd suggest
marketing, and developer marketing primarily. We need to put across that
Zope 3 is powerful, cool, easy, extensible, and built on the vast amount
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Tuesday 11 October 2005 12:20, Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
zope.org will be very heavy. zope3.org will be very light; a simple
Wiki-like site that promotes collaboration. Even marketing is out of
scope right now.
Can you point me to the place where
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Tuesday 11 October 2005 12:41, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
If anyone here really needs WYSIWYG, please make a point, but I doubt that
there will be one...
It's a top priority for Jim. Uwe and I agreed we would prefer ReST.
I got the impression from Jim that
Hey Mats,
Thanks for joining this discussion!
Mats Nordgren wrote:
My name is Mats, I've visited #zope-dev under the nick gnosis. I've long
been a fan of Zope but very inactive in the community. I'm not much of a
programmer and always had a hard time grepping Zope2. Zope3 has made great
Hi there,
Would there be any interest in merging hurry.query into Zope 3.2?
What it does:
hurry.query - higher level query system built on top of the Zope 3
catalog. Some inspiration came from Dieter Maurer's
AdvancedQuery. See src/hurry/query/query.txt for
Hey,
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Would there be any interest in merging hurry.query into Zope 3.2?
Apparently not, or at least people are lacking in time, which is
understandable as I do too. :) I'll try in more advance for Zope 3.3. We
find it very useful here at Infrae, but of course it works
Hi there,
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
are there any guidelines / best practises for setting the contents of
__init__.py, interfaces.py, and the packages that they import or that
they expose? there are too many alternatives and too many ways of ending
up doing circular imports and I'd like to
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
OK, so to summarize this thread:
- __init__.py files are empty
unless for the convenient import of other modules located in the same
package or in a subpackage?
I'm typically okay with this, though I suspect it can in some cases lead
to circular imports you
Gary Poster wrote:
On Nov 21, 2005, at 12:29 PM, Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
There is another place where there seems to be two different patterns
too:
sometimes we have:
import zope.schema
name = zope.schema.TextLine(...)
and sometimes:
from zope.schema import TextLine
name =
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 veto this proposal. Here is
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
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:
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 one
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:
Dmitry Vasiliev wrote:
[snip]
* currently you can translate any string (not only a message id) like this:
p tal:content=string: STRING TO TRANSLATE i18n:translate=/p
In this case the string will be automatically converted to message id
and then translated. I think we definitely shouldn't
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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'm using. 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
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
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
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
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 just a library. Certainly
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
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
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
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,
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 directory for each egg
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 not less either
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 Zope 3
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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 where a system
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 part
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
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
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 already
1 - 100 of 455 matches
Mail list logo
