Jeff McNeil wrote:
That's not all that obvious to someone new to the Zope system. Most
of the documentation I've found is geared towards the 2.x branch. As
Zope 3 and Zope 2 are different animals, I wouldn't think that the
deployment steps and recommendations would be all that similar.
With
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 01:20:53PM -0400, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Jeff McNeil wrote:
I'd love to be able to just drop an egg on the file system and tell
Zope Here, go load that one now via configuration alone.
You could also write your own ZCML directive (+ a handler) that does that.
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 01:20:53PM -0400, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Jeff McNeil wrote:
I'd love to be able to just drop an egg on the file system and tell
Zope Here, go load that one now via configuration alone.
You could also write your own ZCML directive (+ a
I think I'll add a new directive to register my application specific
plugins. That way, I can rely on my own entry points and whatnot.
That gives me a nice way to not have to rerun buildout (rather, not
have to rely on the operations department to rerun buildout).
I'm planning on running through
Log message for revision 88312:
import cleanup
Changed:
U Zope/trunk/lib/python/Products/MailHost/MailHost.py
U Zope/trunk/lib/python/Products/MailHost/SendMailTag.py
-=-
Modified: Zope/trunk/lib/python/Products/MailHost/MailHost.py
Log message for revision 88313:
zope.testing==3.6.0
Changed:
_U Zope/trunk/lib/python/zope/
-=-
Property changes on: Zope/trunk/lib/python/zope
___
Name: svn:externals
- annotation
Log message for revision 88314:
Rsing zope.texting 3.5.3 again.
Using zope.testing 3.6.0 fails with
/opt/python-2.4.4/bin/python /home/develop/sandboxes/Zope/Zope/test.py -v
Traceback (most recent call last):
File /home/develop/sandboxes/Zope/Zope/test.py, line 100, in ?
Log message for revision 88315:
Fix for LP #245649 (issue with namespace packages)
Changed:
U Products.Five/branches/1.5/i18n.zcml
-=-
Modified: Products.Five/branches/1.5/i18n.zcml
===
---
Log message for revision 88316:
* LP #245649: fixes clashes with zope. and zope.app namespace
packages
Changed:
U Products.Five/branches/1.5/CHANGES.txt
-=-
Modified: Products.Five/branches/1.5/CHANGES.txt
===
---
Log message for revision 88317:
'creating tag svn+ssh://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/repos/main/Products.Five/tags/1.5.8
from svn+ssh://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/repos/main/Products.Five/branches/1.5'
Changed:
A Products.Five/tags/1.5.8/
-=-
Copied: Products.Five/tags/1.5.8 (from rev 88316,
Log message for revision 88318:
updated to Five 1.5.8
Changed:
_U Zope/branches/2.10/lib/python/Products/
-=-
Property changes on: Zope/branches/2.10/lib/python/Products
___
Name: svn:externals
- Five
Log message for revision 88319:
Update to Five 1.5.8
Changed:
U Zope/branches/2.10/doc/CHANGES.txt
-=-
Modified: Zope/branches/2.10/doc/CHANGES.txt
===
--- Zope/branches/2.10/doc/CHANGES.txt 2008-07-13 12:03:15 UTC (rev
Benji York wrote at 2008-7-3 17:44 -0400:
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Christian Theune [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 17:22 -0400, Benji York wrote:
I'd like to 1) remove the layer tear-down mechanism entirely, and 2)
make (almost) all layers run in a subprocess.
You are
Martin Aspeli wrote at 2008-7-4 00:56 +0100:
Benji York wrote:
Parallisation can offer huge (!) speed increases, but it can also be
hard to debug tests. I'd be tempted to let single threaded by the
default, safe choice, and let people opt into parallisation only when
they know what
Andreas Jung wrote at 2008-7-12 07:17 +0200:
...
What do you mean by higher level? I think that the check within the
ZPublisher is the highest and right place.
Code running
after the commit() expects a new transaction and now will not get that.
You refer to code executed as part of a ZODB
Here is the traceback information:
2008-07-13T10:44:37 ERROR SiteError http://127.0.0.1:8080/@@index.html
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
/home/lgs/z3env25/eggs/tmpbLKU14/zope.publisher-3.5.3-py2.5.egg/zope/publisher/publish.py,
line 133, in publish
File
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 09:05:16AM +0200, Dieter Maurer wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote at 2008-7-12 07:17 +0200:
...
What do you mean by higher level? I think that the check within the
ZPublisher is the highest and right place.
Code running
after the commit() expects a new transaction and
If there are no objections I plan to release a bug-fix release of Zope
2.11.1 on Wednesday.
Andreas
pgpeAIhLs0PAG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 07:17:31AM +0200, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 10. Juli 2008 17:09:36 +0200 Brian Sutherland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 12:12:06AM -0400, Paul Winkler wrote:
Hi,
I havn't investigated properly, but it may be necessary to do the
isDoomed()
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Sat Jul 12 11:00:00 2008 UTC to Sun Jul 13 11:00:00 2008 UTC.
There were 5 messages: 5 from Zope Tests.
Tests passed OK
---
Subject: OK : Zope-2.8 Python-2.3.6 : Linux
From: Zope Tests
Date: Sat Jul 12 21:00:48 EDT 2008
URL:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lorenzo Gil Sánchez wrote:
Here is the traceback information:
2008-07-13T10:44:37 ERROR SiteError http://127.0.0.1:8080/@@index.html
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
Martin quoting me:
I was referring to the thread at
http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-pas/2004-September/86.html,
entitled [Zope-PAS] Challengers (and Zope 3)
...
Sorry, I may've gotten my history mixed up a little here, but in any
case, I think the point remains: no-one's said
Previously Mark Hammond wrote:
Martin quoting me:
I was referring to the thread at
http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-pas/2004-September/86.html,
entitled [Zope-PAS] Challengers (and Zope 3)
...
Sorry, I may've gotten my history mixed up a little here, but in any
case, I
Zope3 has never supported PAS and I doubt it ever well.
That is a shame - the thread I referred to shows that Jim was working on
exactly that - it's a shame that never came to fruition (and indeed, its not
clear why that attempt failed - should PAS have been fixed to make that
transition
--On 13. Juli 2008 19:38:01 +0300 Mark Hammond [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Since Zope3 is not a successor to Zope2 but a
completely different thing I do not think this is problematic.
That too seems a shame to me. So if I found myself with an investment in
Zope2 but was looking to the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tres Seaver wrote:
Lorenzo Gil Sánchez wrote:
Here is the traceback information:
2008-07-13T10:44:37 ERROR SiteError http://127.0.0.1:8080/@@index.html
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark Hammond wrote:
Zope3 has never supported PAS and I doubt it ever well.
That is a shame - the thread I referred to shows that Jim was working on
exactly that - it's a shame that never came to fruition (and indeed, its not
clear why that
El dom, 13-07-2008 a las 09:35 -0400, Tres Seaver escribió:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Steps to reproduce this problem:
virtualenv --no-site-packages z3env25
cd z3env25
. bin/activate
easy_install zopeproject
zopeproject HelloWorld
cd HelloWorld
bin/paster serve
28 matches
Mail list logo
