On Thursday 21 April 2005 08:13, Chris Withers wrote:
> > Twisted has its own logging framework and the Twisted Web server logs to
> > this framework and not the standard Python one. So we have to hook into
> > it, which this code exactly does.
>
> So, just to check I understand correctly: Zope 3 p
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 21 April 2005 06:38, Chris Withers wrote:
Why are you looking to use this rather than Python's logging package?
The observer below clearly uses the Python logging package:
Oops, sorry, missed that...
Twisted has its own logging framework and the Twisted Web server
On Thursday 21 April 2005 06:38, Chris Withers wrote:
> Why are you looking to use this rather than Python's logging package?
The observer below clearly uses the Python logging package:
def __init__(self, logger=None):
if logger is None:
logger = logging.getLogger('accesslog'
Why are you looking to use this rather than Python's logging package?
Chris
Stephan Richter wrote:
Log message for revision 30066:
Reimplemented common access log using Twisted's log framework. It uses our
setup accesslog. Tests will follow, but BjornT wants to have a look.
Changed:
A
On Wednesday 20 April 2005 13:54, Chris Withers wrote:
> > + self.response.setHeader('x-zope-principal', message)
>
> Does this header make its way back the the browser?
>
> Should it?
Yep. But James Knight (foom) and I have a better idea. We will extend the WSGI
stuff by a 'logginginfo; d
Stephan Richter wrote:
+self.response.setHeader('x-zope-principal', message)
Does this header make its way back the the browser?
Should it?
cheers,
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk
___
On Thursday 14 April 2005 14:17, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:04:06PM -0400, Stephan Richter wrote:
> | Any constructive input? Will a temporary file be better? Will it work
> | easily cross-platform? How was this solved in Zope 2?
>
> So, in Zope 2, what we did recently was
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:04:06PM -0400, Stephan Richter wrote:
| Any constructive input? Will a temporary file be better? Will it work easily
| cross-platform? How was this solved in Zope 2?
So, in Zope 2, what we did recently was to introduce a LARGE_FILE_THRESHOLD
ZConfig variable. If the fil
On Thursday 14 April 2005 14:22, Tres Seaver wrote:
> > Any constructive input? Will a temporary file be better? Will it work
> > easily cross-platform? How was this solved in Zope 2?
>
> Sidnei is correct that a RAM cache is not appropriate here; a tempfile
> (but only one!) is the only sane rout
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephan Richter wrote:
> On Thursday 14 April 2005 13:43, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
>
>>On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 01:22:53PM -0400, Stephan Richter wrote:
>>| On Thursday 14 April 2005 13:00, Florent Guillaume wrote:
>>| > > +def __init__(self, stream)
On Thursday 14 April 2005 13:43, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 01:22:53PM -0400, Stephan Richter wrote:
> | On Thursday 14 April 2005 13:00, Florent Guillaume wrote:
> | > > + def __init__(self, stream):
> | > > + self.stream = stream
> | > > + self.cacheStream =
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 01:22:53PM -0400, Stephan Richter wrote:
| On Thursday 14 April 2005 13:00, Florent Guillaume wrote:
| > > + def __init__(self, stream):
| > > + self.stream = stream
| > > + self.cacheStream = cStringIO.StringIO()
| >
| > Won't a memory cache be a problem fo
On Thursday 14 April 2005 13:00, Florent Guillaume wrote:
> > + def __init__(self, stream):
> > + self.stream = stream
> > + self.cacheStream = cStringIO.StringIO()
>
> Won't a memory cache be a problem for multi-megabytes POSTs ?
Maybe, but we have no choice here. The only other
Stephan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Log message for revision 29982:
> - Fixed issue 390. Deprecated ``IBaseRequest.body`` and
> ``IBaseRequest.bodyFile``. The latter was simply renamed to
> ``IBaseRequest.bodyStream``. No code assumes anymore that the input
> streams are see
14 matches
Mail list logo
