Jim Fulton wrote:
> - It's not well enough documented. While I think there's merit in doing
> some things at the WSGI level, I remain pretty happy with the
> publication interface for separatating generic publisher functions from
> application policies. I which the use of this API was better
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Perhaps it's time to deprecate the deprecation system.
>
> Why?
>
> * I've had good experience in the Grok project with just noting changes
> that might break code in the upgrade notes for Grok and telling peo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Withers wrote:
> Hey Tres,
>
> Tres Seaver wrote:
>> 2. Move the persistent registry stuff out into another package,
>>including whatever support is needed to allow for people to migrate
>>existing persistent references. Effectively, th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Thanks for the clarifications concerning registries. Does the multiple
> registry situation mean any changes to the implementation of the ZCML
> directives at all or will they just work as soon the underlying registry
> sit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dieter Maurer wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote at 2009-3-3 22:11 +0100:
>> ...
>>> backwards compatibility at all costs,
>> I agree that have erred on the side of too much backwards compatibility.
>> That increased the overhead of changes tremendously a
Hi Martijn
> Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] zope.publisher
>
> Roger Ineichen wrote:
>
> > Does grok need to register this new adapter somewhere?
> > If the adapter configuration is missing the default skin
> apply pattern
> > will break.
>
> As long as zope.publisher's configure.zcml does it, Grok
Hi Dan
Dan Korostelev wrote:
> Hi there!
>
> While looking at the zope.app.principalannotation package, I
> discovered that both zope.annotation and zope.app.principalannotation
> register their IAnnotations adapters twice: fisrt, as a simple adapter
> and second, as a multi adapter for some addit
Hi Martijn
> Betreff: [Zope-dev] deprecating the deprecation system?
>
> Hi there,
>
> Perhaps it's time to deprecate the deprecation system.
>
> Why?
>
> * I've had good experience in the Grok project with just
> noting changes that might break code in the upgrade notes for
> Grok and telli
On Mar 5, 2009, at 5:02 PM, Laurence Rowe wrote:
> Gary Poster wrote:
>> I disagree with the blanket statement.
>>
>> I do lean towards not having the extras for the test package only.
>> I'm fine with the policy "If you want zope.testing for your tests,
>> then keep it as a dependency for the pack
2009/3/5 Gary Poster :
>
> On Mar 5, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I know opinions are divergent about 'extra' dependencies in setup.py.
>> These ar dependencies that effectively make a single project with a
>> single dependency structure into a number of "virtual" p
Hi there!
While looking at the zope.app.principalannotation package, I
discovered that both zope.annotation and zope.app.principalannotation
register their IAnnotations adapters twice: fisrt, as a simple adapter
and second, as a multi adapter for some additional context object.
The zope.annotatio
Gary Poster wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I know opinions are divergent about 'extra' dependencies in setup.py.
>> These ar dependencies that effectively make a single project with a
>> single dependency structure into a number of "virtual" packag
Dan Korostelev wrote at 2009-3-5 22:14 +0300:
> ...
>-0.75 for removing functionality extras. I still don't get how extras
>are different from additional packages.
I agree with Dan -- and add -1.
The extras are equivalent to almost identical additional packages.
If this makes reasoning more diff
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Perhaps it's time to deprecate the deprecation system.
>From my personal view, I think the deprecation system works in certain
cases in its current form. It does not work as the only means of
documenting API changes for the evolution of software.
I tend to think of softwa
Hi there,
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
[snip]
> I would like to see a move away from zope testing frameworks to a more
> standard testing infrastructure: setup.py test, possibly combined with
> using nose.
This is another discussion that has little to do with testing
dependencies such as zope.app.tes
On Mar 5, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I know opinions are divergent about 'extra' dependencies in setup.py.
> These ar dependencies that effectively make a single project with a
> single dependency structure into a number of "virtual" packages that
> each can have a s
Previously Sidnei da Silva wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > I would like to see a move away from zope testing frameworks to a more
> > standard testing infrastructure: setup.py test, possibly combined with
> > using nose.
> >
> > Wichert.
>
> Be aware of nose i
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> I would like to see a move away from zope testing frameworks to a more
> standard testing infrastructure: setup.py test, possibly combined with
> using nose.
>
> Wichert.
Be aware of nose issue #102:
http://code.google.com/p/python-nose
Previously Martijn Faassen wrote:
> I therefore think zope.app.testing is one package we should be looking
> to get rid of eventually by splitting it up among a lot of 'testing'
> modules in individual packages. This way we won't have zope.app.testing
> sitting at an edge against our whole depend
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 17:35, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> * I've had good experience in the Grok project with just noting changes
> that might break code in the upgrade notes for Grok and telling people
> how to fix it. Using documentation more background can be provided and
> it can become a lot mor
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip proposal to stop using extras]
> Opinions?
+1
--
Benji York
Senior Software Engineer
Zope Corporation
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-de
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2009-3-5 17:35 +0100:
>Perhaps it's time to deprecate the deprecation system.
> ...
>Thoughts?
+1
--
Dieter
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> * we shouldn't create any new "extra" dependencies from now on.
+1
> * we should investigate ways to remove the need for 'extra' dependencies.
+1
> I therefore think zope.app.testing is one package we should be looking
> to get rid of ev
2009/3/5 Martijn Faassen :
> Hi there,
>
> I know opinions are divergent about 'extra' dependencies in setup.py.
> These ar dependencies that effectively make a single project with a
> single dependency structure into a number of "virtual" packages that
> each can have a separate list of dependenci
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> I know opinions are divergent about 'extra' dependencies in setup.py.
> These ar dependencies that effectively make a single project with a
> single dependency structure into a number of "virtual" packages that
> each can have a separate list of dependencies. Such a virt
Hi there,
I know opinions are divergent about 'extra' dependencies in setup.py.
These ar dependencies that effectively make a single project with a
single dependency structure into a number of "virtual" packages that
each can have a separate list of dependencies. Such a virtual package
that we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 5, 2009, at 19:08 , Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>> On Mar 5, 2009, at 17:55 , Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>
>>> Jens, could you pick up zopeframework/trunk now for
>>> http://docs.zope.org/zopeframework? And put a redir
Dan Korostelev wrote:
> 2009/3/5 Dan Korostelev :
>
>> The zope.schema is also needed for the password
>> manager vocabulary, but I'm not sure if the vocabulary should go to
>> the new package, because it adds a dependency on zope.schema. What do
>> people think?
>
> Ah, I forgot that the passwor
Hey Dan,
Thanks for taking the initiative to propose more refactorings!
Dan Korostelev wrote:
> I'd like to continue moving code to saner places, so here's two more
> little ideas on next refactorings:
>
> - Move password managers from zope.app.authentication to a new
> package, like zope.passwo
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2009-3-3 22:11 +0100:
> ...
>> backwards compatibility at all costs,
>
>I agree that have erred on the side of too much backwards compatibility.
>That increased the overhead of changes tremendously and blocked innovation.
Large applications are built upon the framework.
2009/3/5 Dan Korostelev :
> The zope.schema is also needed for the password
> manager vocabulary, but I'm not sure if the vocabulary should go to
> the new package, because it adds a dependency on zope.schema. What do
> people think?
Ah, I forgot that the password managers are intended to be regi
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On Mar 5, 2009, at 17:55 , Martijn Faassen wrote:
>
>> Jens, could you pick up zopeframework/trunk now for
>> http://docs.zope.org/zopeframework? And put a redirect in place for
>> http://docs.zope.org/zope3docs to the
Hey,
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2009, at 17:55 , Martijn Faassen wrote:
>
>> Jens, could you pick up zopeframework/trunk now for
>> http://docs.zope.org/zopeframework? And put a redirect in place for
>> http://docs.zope.org/zope3docs to the new location?
>>
>> We can then retire zope3docs.
I'd like to continue moving code to saner places, so here's two more
little ideas on next refactorings:
- Move password managers from zope.app.authentication to a new
package, like zope.password. They are really useful in any
authentication system, even not related to "zope3 the app server" or
zod
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 5, 2009, at 17:55 , Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Jens, could you pick up zopeframework/trunk now for
> http://docs.zope.org/zopeframework? And put a redirect in place for
> http://docs.zope.org/zope3docs to the new location?
>
> We can then retire
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 5, 2009, at 18:24 , Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> Let's do this:
>
> - svn copy zope3docs to zopeframework
>
> - once you think zopeframework is ready for public viewing, let me
> know and I'll set up a self-updating sandbox and a redirect
>
> -
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 5, 2009, at 16:32 , Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Thanks for pointing that out. If we moved it could you put a
> redirect in
> place that just pointed .../zope3docs to .../zopeframework?
>
> I think to get started on the move we could copy the in
On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 16:53 +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I'm happy to announce that the Zope Framework Steering Group is now
> bigger than Just Me.
>
> Stephan Richter and Christian Theune have now joined the Steering Group,
> bringing it up to 3 members. I think both don't nee
Hi there,
I've moved over the documentation zope3docs over into the
zopeframework/trunk package.
I left the documentation in zope3docs too for now so as not to break the
automated web build system.
Jens, could you pick up zopeframework/trunk now for
http://docs.zope.org/zopeframework? And put
Hi there,
Perhaps it's time to deprecate the deprecation system.
Why?
* I've had good experience in the Grok project with just noting changes
that might break code in the upgrade notes for Grok and telling people
how to fix it. Using documentation more background can be provided and
it can be
Hi there,
Baiju, much thanks for looking into this. I hope we can indeed get rid
of this code.
I myself have the suspicion that the deprecation system is perhaps a
'false optimum' in most cases. Putting in deprecations tends to be quite
a bit of work (as it's a code change), the warnings weren
Shane Hathaway wrote:
> Roger Ineichen wrote:
>> Shane,
>> Can you review and merge this changes into your
>> zope.pipeline branch?
>
> I'm going to put zope.pipeline on hold until the PyCon sprints. Jim and
> I need to discuss it in person; hopefully then I can understand his
> opposition and
Martin Aspeli wrote at 2009-3-3 17:21 +0900:
> ...
>How many times have we gotten bogged down in semantics or
>naming discussions and killed off the momentum behind something?
A clear notion of semantics and well chosen names are important
for any project.
I would not want momentum resulting in
Roger Ineichen wrote:
> Does grok need to register this new adapter somewhere?
> If the adapter configuration is missing the default skin
> apply pattern will break.
As long as zope.publisher's configure.zcml does it, Grok will load that
up. Grok isn't different in that respect; it only uses Gro
Hi there,
I'm happy to announce that the Zope Framework Steering Group is now
bigger than Just Me.
Stephan Richter and Christian Theune have now joined the Steering Group,
bringing it up to 3 members. I think both don't need much introduction
on this mailing list.
Since we're now bigger than
Chris Withers wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> I think we can only make the correct determination if we get an idea of
>> the performance implications. If it turns out the C code brings
>> significant speedups in real-world applications, we should create a
>> zope.hookable with a Python + C im
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2009-3-3 00:36 +0100:
> ...
>* how will the community make hard decisions where lots of people
>disagree?
You try to achieve consensus. When you do not, you get the chance
that people turn away.
> ...
>* who reminds us of necessary tasks and directions we're going into?
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On Mar 5, 2009, at 08:24 , Christian Theune wrote:
>
>> As Dan pointed out, some of those documents are a bit more general
>> than
>> Zope Framework, but, then again, they're also more general than Zope
>> 3.
>> So
Hi there,
Thanks for the clarifications concerning registries. Does the multiple
registry situation mean any changes to the implementation of the ZCML
directives at all or will they just work as soon the underlying registry
situation is adjusted?
Another point is that we need to make sure we h
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 14:15, Gary Poster wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2009, at 6:38 AM, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
>>
>> And I am personally interested if the Zope 3 app server is something
>> that's
>> dying in favour for other projects (Plone/Grok) or is actively used.
>
> Not clear on what you mean by t
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> Baiju M wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Dan Korostelev wrote:
2009/3/2 Tres Seaver :
>>> -
>> I believe people still use the ZCML "slug" files
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Baiju M wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Tres Seaver wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Baiju M wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>zope.deprecation is used in zope.configuration *only* to turn
>>> off deprecation warning
On Mar 5, 2009, at 6:38 AM, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
>
> And I am personally interested if the Zope 3 app server is something
> that's
> dying in favour for other projects (Plone/Grok) or is actively used.
Not clear on what you mean by the "app server".
If you mean zope.publisher, no, I don'
On Mar 1, 2009, at 1:00 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
>
> There's been some discussion recently about separating the interfaces
> in zope.publisher from the implementations to facilitate other
> implementations.
>
> I think it would be great to standardize request and response APIs.
> I'd love to see thi
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 13:53, Sebastien Douche wrote:
Sorry, wrong ml :(
--
Sebastien Douche
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http:
Pour rappel il existait nss3-{1,2,3] pour tester les corrections de
bugs en 3.4 et 3.5. Comme nous développons plus la 3.4 (et que j'ai
besoin de machines), j'ai récupéré les deux premières.
--
Sebastien Douche
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Wed Mar 4 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Thu Mar 5 12:00:00 2009 UTC.
There were 6 messages: 6 from Zope Tests.
Tests passed OK
---
Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux
From: Zope Tests
Date: Wed Mar 4 20:25:30 EST 2009
URL: http://
Am Mittwoch 04 März 2009 19:00:12 schrieb Baiju M:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Martijn Faassen
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > The steering group isn't intended to take a responsibility for the
> > entirety of the Zope software. Zope 2, Grok and the Zope 3 app server
> > (which would be a distinct
Am Mittwoch 04 März 2009 17:48:37 schrieb Martijn Faassen:
> Hi there,
>
> Lennart Regebro wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > And it is in any case in no way even remotely connected to the group
> > Martijn proposed and has been discussed in this thread.
>
> - Attracting newbies to web development is not a task
Am Mittwoch 04 März 2009 18:03:17 schrieb Lennart Regebro:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 17:48, Martijn Faassen
wrote:
> > Note that the Zope Steering group is not about
> > packages that are not in the framework, so if lovely.remotetask isn't
> > there, it can say little.
>
> Which is exactly my poin
Hey Tres,
Tres Seaver wrote:
> 2. Move the persistent registry stuff out into another package,
>including whatever support is needed to allow for people to migrate
>existing persistent references. Effectively, this moves one "extra"
>out to a package, *including* its testing dependenc
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> I think we can only make the correct determination if we get an idea of
> the performance implications. If it turns out the C code brings
> significant speedups in real-world applications, we should create a
> zope.hookable with a Python + C implementation.
Even if it
Baiju M wrote:
> I have pasted the relevant code here:
>
> def resolve(self, dottedname):
> """Resolve a dotted name to an object."""
I wonder why zope.dottedname isn't being used here either?
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
- http://www.s
63 matches
Mail list logo
