-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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 the BFG
> security code itself.
BFG doesn't support the notion of "untrusted" code, and hence doesn't
need the "space suits" provided in C by zope.securty / zope.proxy.
>> On a side note I have got a big chunk of zope3 running on gae (had to
>> gut zope.security and zope.proxy) and plan on revisiting the whole
>> effort looking at bfg, but I would need to revert
>> to zpt because cheetah
> Chameleon, I think you mean.
>> is dependant on lxml and its no 'c' for me,
>> any suggestions or ideas
>> on the effort involved. (I have zpt running with similiar
>> functionality to zope.app.pagetemplate level rather thatn
>> zope.pagetemplate) with full macro lookups etc....
> Malthe has expressed interest in removing the lxml dependency from Chameleon,
> but I think he needs funding. Others have also expressed an interest in this
> and we'd probably kick in to a pool of funds towards this if you ever get to
> point where it became something you wanted to do. I really don't know how
> effort is involved, but for the record, Chameleon only depends relatively
> shallowly on lxml (mostly for xpath expressions), and removing lxml will make
> difference in rendering speed.
It might even be easiest to ship an app (as opposed to developing it)
with the generated python code on disk, and configure it not to
regenerate at all: at that point, lxml would be a "build-time" dependency.
Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tsea...@palladion.com
Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -