Andrew Milton wrote at 2009-4-11 21:46 +1000:
...
So your position is, the code is fine, but, the docs suck so don't use
it. Well the docs have always sucked, the zope-3 docs don't seem any
better. Perhaps the people deprecating and removing interfaces willy-nilly
should document the
+---[ Dieter Maurer ]--
| Andrew Milton wrote at 2009-4-11 21:46 +1000:
| ...
| So your position is, the code is fine, but, the docs suck so don't use
| it. Well the docs have always sucked, the zope-3 docs don't seem any
| better. Perhaps the people deprecating and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12.04.2009 9:01 Uhr, Dieter Maurer wrote:
Andrew Milton wrote at 2009-4-11 21:46 +1000:
...
So your position is, the code is fine, but, the docs suck so don't use
it. Well the docs have always sucked, the zope-3 docs don't seem any
better.
Andreas Jung wrote at 2009-4-12 09:52 +0200:
@Dieter: participate or be silent.
I do not obey your orders.
You are Zope 2 release manager and part of the
Foundation board -- but you do not have command power over things outside
the Zope 2 release management and the foundation.
Thus, I
Andreas Jung wrote at 2009-4-12 09:52 +0200:
...
@Dieter: participate or be silent. You are member of the Zope community
for years, you are member of the Zope Foundation as a committer member.
Such statements are at most laughable based on your record of your
active contributions to the Zope
Log message for revision 99136:
Use the latests zdaemon to zopectl -h and runzope -h work again :-)
Changed:
U Zope/trunk/versions-zope3.cfg
-=-
Modified: Zope/trunk/versions-zope3.cfg
===
--- Zope/trunk/versions-zope3.cfg
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2009-4-10 18:33 +0200:
Is anyone interested in maintaining Zope 3?
You should leave a bit more time before you take any drastic actions...
There are holidays, time of intensive other activity,
...
* the thing that has some kind of documentation website - do you
Hanno Schlichting wrote at 2009-4-11 14:35 +0200:
...
In all other debates we seemed to agree on not over specifying
requirements in setup.py files, I wonder why anybody still tries to
follow this route.
Because the way the Zope 2.12a1 egg did it has broken within a few weeks
--
Dieter
Hanno Schlichting wrote at 2009-4-11 15:05 +0200:
...
+1, to declaring Zope 3 dead. That should allow us to refactor the
remaining packages much more aggressively and reduce the dependencies.
You (Zope developers) are very fast in declaring things dead and
destroy things application developers
Lennart Regebro wrote at 2009-4-11 16:12 +0200:
...
Does easy_install keep track of already installed dependencies and
refuse to install it if it break dependencies?
easy_install checks dependencies only at installation time -- for the egg
that is installed (not for those that are already
Hi all,
For a while now, people have had to contend with two ways of doing
certain things, depending on whether the code they are working with is
in Zope 2 land or Zope 3 land. We're getting closer to a world where
people don't need to be so intimately aware of the differences,
especially
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Sat Apr 11 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Sun Apr 12 12:00:00 2009 UTC.
There were 8 messages: 8 from Zope Tests.
Tests passed OK
---
Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux
From: Zope Tests
Date: Sat Apr 11 20:46:12 EDT 2009
URL:
Hi,
I'm using a trunk version of z3c.form and have the following situation:
In my interface I have a zope.schema.Bytes field.
z3c.form.converter.FileUploadDataConverter.toFieldValue returns
z3c.form.interfaces.NOT_CHANGED when I do not upload a file.
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 02:10, Tim Hoffman t...@zute.net wrote:
We are using Zope 3 pretty much as it comes from zopeproject, and
storm orm for a large part of the persistence layer (plus ZODB).
I have to say I think it's great that somebody that does this finally
is speaking up. There shurely
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 08:51, Dieter Maurer die...@handshake.de wrote:
I see myself rather as an application developer and conclude that
Zope may no longer be adequate to build large applications on top
of it -- applications that need to live and be maintained for many years
to come.
Well,
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 12:31, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com wrote:
Thoughts?
I haven't had my dead deeep down in the Zope 2 security for three
years, so I'm a bit fuzzy on how it works, but all this sounds like a
good step forward.
+1
--
Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 08:56, Dieter Maurer die...@handshake.de wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote at 2009-4-11 16:12 +0200:
...
Does easy_install keep track of already installed dependencies and
refuse to install it if it break dependencies?
easy_install checks dependencies only at installation
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 17:26, Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com wrote:
No, you just said above we were in the yes case.
No you didn't. My bad. We are in the no case.
--
Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok
http://regebro.wordpress.com/
+33 661 58 14 64
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris McDonough wrote:
On 4/11/09 11:49 PM, Tim Hoffman wrote:
Ok so pretty much the same as the traditional Zope 3 model.
Are you still using the 'c' based zope.security or built your own.
We don't depend on zope.security and there is no C in
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com wrote:
On 4/11/09 7:32 PM, Roger Ineichen wrote:
That much dependency cleanup would be fantastic.
Yes, cool, but what exactly whould you like to cleanup?
The bits that I use are already pretty nicely cleaned up. But in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11.04.2009 19:32 Uhr, Tres Seaver wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Tres has earlier proposed a meta egg to represent versions.cfg in
a setuptools only (non buildout) environment.
A meta egg is an egg
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 12:31, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com wrote:
1) Use an event handler to ensure that any permission / declared in
ZCML actually creates a valid, Zope 2 permission. I have working code
for this here which we could put in Products.Five with ease.
Martin Aspeli wrote:
So, here is what I'd like to propose, ideally for Zope 2.12:
1) Use an event handler to ensure that any permission / declared in
ZCML actually creates a valid, Zope 2 permission. I have working code
for this here which we could put in Products.Five with ease.
+1
Hi All,
Am I right in thinking that in days gone by you could do:
browser:page
for=*
name=standard_template.pt
template=standard_template.pt
permission=zope2.View
/
...which would then allow you to use the macros from that zpt as follows:
html
Hi All,
In Zope 2.12, clicking the Test tab on a zpt in the zmi gives:
Traceback (innermost last):
Module ZPublisher.Publish, line 119, in publish
Module ZPublisher.mapply, line 77, in mapply
Module ZPublisher.Publish, line 42, in call_object
Module Shared.DC.Scripts.Bindings, line
25 matches
Mail list logo
