On Sep 1, 2005, at 6:05 AM, Adam Groszer wrote:
Dear Gary,
Maybe not too late, I have here one more thing to look at:
Hi Adam. Unfortunately, we did not get to your bug issues.
If you have not already, please do put your issues in the Zope 3
collector
Dear Gary,
Maybe not too late, I have here one more thing to look at:
It happened that the szerepek attribute of the object implementing the
ISzemely interface was left by default at a value None. As I tried
to modify the object with a standard generated editform, the exception
below came. I
Dear Gary and Stephan,
Would you please have a look at my messages with the subject
[Zope3-dev] problems with browser:widget
I'm also having problems with CustomWidgetFactory, but in an other
usecase.
--
Best regards,
Adam mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
On Aug 30, 2005, at 2:43 AM, Adam Groszer wrote:
Dear Gary and Stephan,
Would you please have a look at my messages with the subject
[Zope3-dev] problems with browser:widget
I'm also having problems with CustomWidgetFactory, but in an other
usecase.
Adam, I'm sorry, I don't
On 8/30/05, Gary Poster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adam, I'm sorry, I don't know much about the CustomWidgetFactory. We
are using the zope.formlib package exclusively now (http://
svn.zope.org/zope.formlib/), which does not use custom widget
factories or browser:widget. Dominik's email sounds
On Aug 30, 2005, at 11:31 AM, Jim Fulton wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
On Aug 29, 2005, at 4:50 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
...
4 Recognize and document that the 'default' field argument is
actually 'initial value'.
...
I'm uncomfortable with this.
...
Initial value is a
Gary Poster wrote:
2 Clean up the exceptions widget framework. The use of the widget
input error is quite messy: see collector issue 273. The idea would be
to make the use of the errors argument more consistent and more
restricted, and make the 'doc' implementation simpler.
I've just
On Aug 30, 2005, at 9:13 PM, Stuart Bishop wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
2 Clean up the exceptions widget framework. The use of the widget
input error is quite messy: see collector issue 273. The idea
would be
to make the use of the errors argument more consistent and more
restricted, and
On Monday 29 August 2005 15:30, Gary Poster wrote:
We'll be doing some work on the widget/schema code at the Rivah
sprint, Thursday and Friday this week. This email identifies the
possible tasks, and proposes the actual choice of work (short answer:
potentially all but the biggest, and
On Aug 29, 2005, at 3:44 PM, Stephan Richter wrote:
On Monday 29 August 2005 15:30, Gary Poster wrote:
We'll be doing some work on the widget/schema code at the Rivah
sprint, Thursday and Friday this week. This email identifies the
possible tasks, and proposes the actual choice of work
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Monday 29 August 2005 15:30, Gary Poster wrote:
We'll be doing some work on the widget/schema code at the Rivah
sprint, Thursday and Friday this week. This email identifies the
possible tasks, and proposes the actual choice of work (short answer:
potentially all
Gary Poster wrote:
...
4 Recognize and document that the 'default' field argument is actually
'initial value'. That is, if you set a field with a default to the
missing_value, the default does not become the field's value: the
'default' value is only used if the value has never been set
Garrett Smith wrote:
...
Jim has been complaining vociferously about SimpleInputWidget. It's probably
time to nuke it (fine, deprecrete) and replace it with helper functions ala
utility.py.
There's quite a bit on the plate here. I'd be inclined to flesh out in more detail
the
On Aug 29, 2005, at 4:50 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
...
4 Recognize and document that the 'default' field argument is
actually 'initial value'. That is, if you set a field with a
default to the missing_value, the default does not become the
field's value: the 'default'
On Aug 29, 2005, at 4:24 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
To ease our own development, I forked the schema and widgets code a
while back. I don't think we've deviated too severely, but I've
added whatever 2 cents based on my experience below.
1 Flesh out the 'source' design and implementation
I'm uncomfortable with this. Right now, I think fields do too much.
They have too much application logic. This would add more. The whole
concept of initial value seems to be very application dependent.
Maybe it would be best to just drop the default field altogether
and introduce adapters
On Monday 29 August 2005 16:43, Jim Fulton wrote:
I am open for any of them. However, I would be most interested in writing
proposals on things that we want to get implemented in the near future,
i.e. for Zope 3.2.
I thought you and I would work on publisher-related topics.
Great! This is
On Aug 29, 2005, at 6:37 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
On Monday, August 29, 2005 4:33 PM, Gary Poster wrote:
Couldn't 'initial_getter' just be implemented using a property
version of 'initial'?
Yes, it could. The only downside is that it wouldn't be
usable as an
initialization argument. I
18 matches
Mail list logo
