[Zope-Checkins] SVN: Zope/branches/Zope-2_8-branch/lib/python/ZPublisher/tests/testPostTraversal.py Fix test breakage when run outside full Zope suite.
Log message for revision 40341: Fix test breakage when run outside full Zope suite. Changed: U Zope/branches/Zope-2_8-branch/lib/python/ZPublisher/tests/testPostTraversal.py -=- Modified: Zope/branches/Zope-2_8-branch/lib/python/ZPublisher/tests/testPostTraversal.py === --- Zope/branches/Zope-2_8-branch/lib/python/ZPublisher/tests/testPostTraversal.py 2005-11-23 15:50:07 UTC (rev 40340) +++ Zope/branches/Zope-2_8-branch/lib/python/ZPublisher/tests/testPostTraversal.py 2005-11-23 16:48:29 UTC (rev 40341) @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ from unittest import TestCase, TestSuite, makeSuite, main +import Testing import Zope2 Zope2.startup() ___ Zope-Checkins maillist - Zope-Checkins@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-checkins
[Zope-Checkins] SVN: Zope/branches/2.9/lib/python/ZPublisher/tests/testPostTraversal.py Fix test breakage when run outside full Zope suite.
Log message for revision 40342: Fix test breakage when run outside full Zope suite. Changed: U Zope/branches/2.9/lib/python/ZPublisher/tests/testPostTraversal.py -=- Modified: Zope/branches/2.9/lib/python/ZPublisher/tests/testPostTraversal.py === --- Zope/branches/2.9/lib/python/ZPublisher/tests/testPostTraversal.py 2005-11-23 16:48:29 UTC (rev 40341) +++ Zope/branches/2.9/lib/python/ZPublisher/tests/testPostTraversal.py 2005-11-23 16:49:07 UTC (rev 40342) @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ from unittest import TestCase, TestSuite, makeSuite, main +import Testing import Zope2 Zope2.startup() ___ Zope-Checkins maillist - Zope-Checkins@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-checkins
[Zope-Checkins] SVN: Zope/trunk/lib/python/ZPublisher/tests/testPostTraversal.py Fix test breakage when run outside full Zope suite.
Log message for revision 40343: Fix test breakage when run outside full Zope suite. Changed: U Zope/trunk/lib/python/ZPublisher/tests/testPostTraversal.py -=- Modified: Zope/trunk/lib/python/ZPublisher/tests/testPostTraversal.py === --- Zope/trunk/lib/python/ZPublisher/tests/testPostTraversal.py 2005-11-23 16:49:07 UTC (rev 40342) +++ Zope/trunk/lib/python/ZPublisher/tests/testPostTraversal.py 2005-11-23 16:49:33 UTC (rev 40343) @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ from unittest import TestCase, TestSuite, makeSuite, main +import Testing import Zope2 Zope2.startup() ___ Zope-Checkins maillist - Zope-Checkins@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-checkins
[Zope-Checkins] SVN: Zope/branches/Zope-2_8-branch/ Collector #1957: Made ZPublisher.HTTPResponse._error_html return conformant XHTML.
Log message for revision 40344: Collector #1957: Made ZPublisher.HTTPResponse._error_html return conformant XHTML. Changed: U Zope/branches/Zope-2_8-branch/doc/CHANGES.txt U Zope/branches/Zope-2_8-branch/lib/python/ZPublisher/HTTPResponse.py -=- Modified: Zope/branches/Zope-2_8-branch/doc/CHANGES.txt === --- Zope/branches/Zope-2_8-branch/doc/CHANGES.txt 2005-11-23 16:49:33 UTC (rev 40343) +++ Zope/branches/Zope-2_8-branch/doc/CHANGES.txt 2005-11-23 17:06:23 UTC (rev 40344) @@ -26,6 +26,9 @@ Bugs Fixed + - Collector #1957: Made ZPublisher.HTTPResponse._error_html +return conformant XHTML. + - Collector #1891: Backported changes to ZCatalog regression tests, removing use of 'whrandom' (and its 'seed' function). Modified: Zope/branches/Zope-2_8-branch/lib/python/ZPublisher/HTTPResponse.py === --- Zope/branches/Zope-2_8-branch/lib/python/ZPublisher/HTTPResponse.py 2005-11-23 16:49:33 UTC (rev 40343) +++ Zope/branches/Zope-2_8-branch/lib/python/ZPublisher/HTTPResponse.py 2005-11-23 17:06:23 UTC (rev 40344) @@ -599,43 +599,44 @@ def _error_html(self,title,body): # XXX could this try to use standard_error_message somehow? return (\ -TABLE BORDER=0 WIDTH=100% -TR VALIGN=TOP +table border=0 width=100% +tr valign=top -TD WIDTH=10% ALIGN=CENTER +td width=10% align=center nbsp; -/TD +/td -TD WIDTH=90% - H2Site Error/H2 - PAn error was encountered while publishing this resource. - /P + \ +td width=90% + h2Site Error/h2 + pAn error was encountered while publishing this resource. + /p + \ - PSTRONG%s/STRONG/P + pstrong%s/strong/p %s %(title,body) + \ - HR NOSHADE + hr noshade=noshade/ - PTroubleshooting Suggestions/P + pTroubleshooting Suggestions/p - UL - LIThe URL may be incorrect./LI - LIThe parameters passed to this resource may be incorrect./LI - LIA resource that this resource relies on may be - encountering an error./LI - /UL + ul + liThe URL may be incorrect./li + liThe parameters passed to this resource may be incorrect./li + liA resource that this resource relies on may be + encountering an error./li + /ul - PFor more detailed information about the error, please + pFor more detailed information about the error, please refer to error log. - /P + /p - PIf the error persists please contact the site maintainer. + pIf the error persists please contact the site maintainer. Thank you for your patience. - /P -/TD/TR -/TABLE) + /p +/td/tr +/table) + def notFoundError(self,entry='Unknown'): self.setStatus(404) raise NotFound, self._error_html( ___ Zope-Checkins maillist - Zope-Checkins@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-checkins
[Zope-Checkins] SVN: Zope/branches/2.9/lib/python/ZPublisher/HTTPResponse.py Forward port fix for collector #1957 from 2.8 branch.
Log message for revision 40345: Forward port fix for collector #1957 from 2.8 branch. Changed: U Zope/branches/2.9/lib/python/ZPublisher/HTTPResponse.py -=- Modified: Zope/branches/2.9/lib/python/ZPublisher/HTTPResponse.py === --- Zope/branches/2.9/lib/python/ZPublisher/HTTPResponse.py 2005-11-23 17:06:23 UTC (rev 40344) +++ Zope/branches/2.9/lib/python/ZPublisher/HTTPResponse.py 2005-11-23 17:11:35 UTC (rev 40345) @@ -599,43 +599,44 @@ def _error_html(self,title,body): # XXX could this try to use standard_error_message somehow? return (\ -TABLE BORDER=0 WIDTH=100% -TR VALIGN=TOP +table border=0 width=100% +tr valign=top -TD WIDTH=10% ALIGN=CENTER +td width=10% align=center nbsp; -/TD +/td -TD WIDTH=90% - H2Site Error/H2 - PAn error was encountered while publishing this resource. - /P + \ +td width=90% + h2Site Error/h2 + pAn error was encountered while publishing this resource. + /p + \ - PSTRONG%s/STRONG/P + pstrong%s/strong/p %s %(title,body) + \ - HR NOSHADE + hr noshade=noshade/ - PTroubleshooting Suggestions/P + pTroubleshooting Suggestions/p - UL - LIThe URL may be incorrect./LI - LIThe parameters passed to this resource may be incorrect./LI - LIA resource that this resource relies on may be - encountering an error./LI - /UL + ul + liThe URL may be incorrect./li + liThe parameters passed to this resource may be incorrect./li + liA resource that this resource relies on may be + encountering an error./li + /ul - PFor more detailed information about the error, please + pFor more detailed information about the error, please refer to error log. - /P + /p - PIf the error persists please contact the site maintainer. + pIf the error persists please contact the site maintainer. Thank you for your patience. - /P -/TD/TR -/TABLE) + /p +/td/tr +/table) + def notFoundError(self,entry='Unknown'): self.setStatus(404) raise NotFound, self._error_html( ___ Zope-Checkins maillist - Zope-Checkins@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-checkins
[Zope-Checkins] SVN: Zope/trunk/lib/python/ZPublisher/HTTPResponse.py Forward port fix for collector #1957 from 2.8 branch.
Log message for revision 40347: Forward port fix for collector #1957 from 2.8 branch. Changed: U Zope/trunk/lib/python/ZPublisher/HTTPResponse.py -=- Modified: Zope/trunk/lib/python/ZPublisher/HTTPResponse.py === --- Zope/trunk/lib/python/ZPublisher/HTTPResponse.py2005-11-23 17:15:03 UTC (rev 40346) +++ Zope/trunk/lib/python/ZPublisher/HTTPResponse.py2005-11-23 17:15:47 UTC (rev 40347) @@ -599,43 +599,44 @@ def _error_html(self,title,body): # XXX could this try to use standard_error_message somehow? return (\ -TABLE BORDER=0 WIDTH=100% -TR VALIGN=TOP +table border=0 width=100% +tr valign=top -TD WIDTH=10% ALIGN=CENTER +td width=10% align=center nbsp; -/TD +/td -TD WIDTH=90% - H2Site Error/H2 - PAn error was encountered while publishing this resource. - /P + \ +td width=90% + h2Site Error/h2 + pAn error was encountered while publishing this resource. + /p + \ - PSTRONG%s/STRONG/P + pstrong%s/strong/p %s %(title,body) + \ - HR NOSHADE + hr noshade=noshade/ - PTroubleshooting Suggestions/P + pTroubleshooting Suggestions/p - UL - LIThe URL may be incorrect./LI - LIThe parameters passed to this resource may be incorrect./LI - LIA resource that this resource relies on may be - encountering an error./LI - /UL + ul + liThe URL may be incorrect./li + liThe parameters passed to this resource may be incorrect./li + liA resource that this resource relies on may be + encountering an error./li + /ul - PFor more detailed information about the error, please + pFor more detailed information about the error, please refer to error log. - /P + /p - PIf the error persists please contact the site maintainer. + pIf the error persists please contact the site maintainer. Thank you for your patience. - /P -/TD/TR -/TABLE) + /p +/td/tr +/table) + def notFoundError(self,entry='Unknown'): self.setStatus(404) raise NotFound, self._error_html( ___ Zope-Checkins maillist - Zope-Checkins@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-checkins
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: How bad _are_ ConflictErrors
Thanks, I'll take a look. On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Michael Dunstan wrote: On 11/22/05, Florent Guillaume [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dennis Allison wrote: *** you are correct -- this is the easy hack on the event.log. It's much harder to know how many make it out to the user. We have an associated bug in the MySQL interface which generates threading errors, apparently triggered by a conflict error and the subsequent backout. These occur with most conflicts which involve the database--almost every conflict with our system structure. I'm actually not sure what's logged when a Conflict Error makes it back to the users, offhand I don't see anything in my logs. Can someone confirm or infirm that fact? If nothing is logged, I'll add something at level ERROR. BTW does someone have a handy script to provoke conflict errors on a naked Zope? There is a doctest that might be useful here. See the last half of testPublisher() in lib/python/ZPublisher/tests/testPublish.py which tests the behavior of the publisher in the face of one or more ConflictErrors. -- ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Not-really-unit-testing ideas.
I noticed on the unit tests I'm currently working on, that most of my time is wasted waiting for sites to be created. So I've been thinking of ways to solve this. Basically, I'd like to create a site once, and use it for all subsequent tests, until I made a change that means the site needs to be recreated. But how? Well, I'm not sure. How, for example, could I use a normal ZODB, with a specific name (so as not to interfere with the normal ZODB) in the unit tests? If I could do that, I could implement a switch to either rebuild the ZODB, or use the existing one. This would shave some 50% of the unit testing time. Ideas? Or am I just stupid? -- Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo http://www.nuxeo.com/ CPS Content Management http://www.cps-project.org/ ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Not-really-unit-testing ideas.
On 11/23/05, Lennart Regebro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Basically, I'd like to create a site once, and use it for all subsequent tests, until I made a change that means the site needs to be recreated. But how? Well, I'm not sure. How, for example, could I Jim's new test runner includes support for layers, which solves this issue. I think the Zope 2 trunk is already using the new test runner; you can also use it on the Zope 3 trunk. We're using test layers extensively here, and it really helps. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr.fdrake at gmail.com There is no wealth but life. --John Ruskin ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Not-really-unit-testing ideas.
On 11/23/05, Fred Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/23/05, Lennart Regebro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Basically, I'd like to create a site once, and use it for all subsequent tests, until I made a change that means the site needs to be recreated. But how? Well, I'm not sure. How, for example, could I Jim's new test runner includes support for layers, which solves this issue. Well, cool! I think the Zope 2 trunk is already using the new test runner; you can also use it on the Zope 3 trunk. We're using test layers extensively here, and it really helps. Too bad I'm on 2.7.old.beta.something here... :-( -- Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo http://www.nuxeo.com/ CPS Content Management http://www.cps-project.org/ ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at: http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository Very well thought out, very well written. +1 from me. Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDhJiF+gerLs4ltQ4RAglCAJ9a+9g2jqXROPuh+fEs/sAYiGfJmgCfU+G0 Wk9G3lsZ37AIrOS0Iafw74M= =XYaJ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at: http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository Indeed this is madness I think I like. :) This sounds like a sensible step to make after the Zope 2.9/Zope 3.2 release. +1 from me. Regards, Martijn ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On Nov 23, 2005, at 10:16 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at: http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository I already spoke with Philipp on IRC about this, but for the record, and speaking personally, and very arguably selfishly: -1. I think it will place too much burden on the small group of Zope 3 developers, some (many?) of whom do not develop or use Zope 2. Yes, I understand the corresponding response is that Zope 2 devs would theoretically contribute more to Zope 3. If the merge happens, I suppose we'll see if Zope 2 pollutes Zope 3, doesn't affect it, or helps it. Arguing about the future is a tough job. Gary ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 10:16, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at: http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository I am -1. If I could I would veto this proposal. Here is why: To be totally honest, I really, really don't care about Zope 2! I am a Zope 3 developer. If Zope 2 code is in the Zope 3 code base, I have to relearn it again and additionally learn Five. Why? Just so I can keep developing Zope 3. This may raise the contribution bar too high for me and I would consider stopping to contribute. If the bar is too high for me, what do you expect from other people? Next, there are several third party applications that do not care about Zope 2 either, but that use the trunk to do their development with. One example is SchoolTool. Having to checkout both, Zope 3 and 2 would just be ridiculous, to say the least! (Note that several contributions of mine during the last weeks were due to my work on SchoolTool using a writeable Zope 3 trunk checkout.) The proposal only benefits Zope 2 people, really. Sure, some of the stuff in Zope 2 that should be forward-ported, but that's minimal. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Stephan Richter wrote: On Wednesday 23 November 2005 10:16, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at: http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository I am -1. If I could I would veto this proposal. Here is why: To be totally honest, I really, really don't care about Zope 2! I'll debate with you this reason. I don't think that this changes your dislike of merging the repositories and this argument is on a side-track and not intended to convince you of this. What my point is here is that your attitude about Zope 2 is wrong: as a pure-play Zope 3 developer you *should* care about Zope 2. Some of us have been doing quite a bit of work of bringing Zope 3 to the Zope 2 world. I believe that at least partially as a result of this, Zope 3 is getting a lot more attention from Zope 2 developers. I think that this attention is extremely valuable to the Zope 3 project. There is an awful lot of experience, skills and knowledge in the Zope 2 world that is immensely valuable to Zope 3 developers. We *don't* have a full respresentation of these extremely valuable perspectives in the Zope 3 development community right now. If Zope 2 developers get the impression that core Zope 3 developers don't give a shit about Zope 2, they may not be so likely to actually come on board. That would be a disastrous development indeed. We really need an increased connection between the Zope 2 world and the Zope 3 world. Regards, Martijn ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at: http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository I'm -1 on this as well. Some Zope3 developers don't care about Zope2 and this is fair enough in my point of view. Zope2 starts to get old and appears to be really a mess compared to Zope3 in *2005*, plus it's not such an attractive platform as it used to be couple of years ago. (Don't get me wrong on this. Time just changed. I'm using Zope2 much more than Zope3 nowadays and still I like it even if I'm *dreaming* about only using a modern platform à la Zope3) I would fear that some new folks might find the Zope3 project much more confusing and less attractive because of the Zope2 mess around. (common mailing list, common repository etc...) Please, let's not mess up Zope3... Cheers, J. - -- Julien Anguenot | Nuxeo RD (Paris, France) CPS Platform : http://www.cps-project.org Zope3 / ECM : http://www.z3lab.org mail: anguenot at nuxeo.com; tel: +33 (0) 6 72 57 57 66 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDhMNqGhoG8MxZ/pIRArjpAJwImKaJLnGO9URfgakS6njnzWzwPwCggHnY KHhFGbndADW7GLL2UFv33Sw= =Yppy -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
What my point is here is that your attitude about Zope 2 is wrong: as a pure-play Zope 3 developer you *should* care about Zope 2. Some of us have been doing quite a bit of work of bringing Zope 3 to the Zope 2 world. I believe that at least partially as a result of this, Zope 3 is getting a lot more attention from Zope 2 developers. I think that this attention is extremely valuable to the Zope 3 project. There is an awful lot of experience, skills and knowledge in the Zope 2 world that is immensely valuable to Zope 3 developers. We *don't* have a full respresentation of these extremely valuable perspectives in the Zope 3 development community right now. If Zope 2 developers get the impression that core Zope 3 developers don't give a shit about Zope 2, they may not be so likely to actually come on board. That would be a disastrous development indeed. We really need an increased connection between the Zope 2 world and the Zope 3 world. ... and I'm one of those developers. I care, for the moment, about one thing: Plone. I want Plone to move to use more Zope 3 technology, sure, because it's clearly superior. But we're not going to re-write it from scratch, and neither, I suspect, will most large Z2 applications. So my path to Z3 is through Z2, by way of Five. Frankly, without that migration path, Z3 is nice and pretty and architecturally very cool and totally irrelevant to me. And judging from the size of the Plone community, if nothing else, there's quite a few people like me. Martin (about to buy Phil's book, honest) -- (muted) ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] RE: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
Hi Philipp [...] Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at: http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeR epository Yes, you are right this sounds crazy. Reading the response to this mail, I guess developer working on existing Zope2 projects agree on this proposal. And developer where build projects only based on Zope3 will not. As somebody how don't know Zope2 I'm -1 on this. Regards Roger Ineichen Philipp ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/dev%40projekt01.ch ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On 24 Nov 2005, at 00:09, Stephan Richter wrote: On Wednesday 23 November 2005 18:49, Jens Vagelpohl wrote: People keep telling Zope2 developers that the inclusion of Zope3 doesn't mean you have to touch it, if you don't use it it is just inert code that won't cause any change in your Zope2 development style. Ok, I accept that, no problem at all. But why should this be any different for Zope3 developers, obviously including Zope2 code would mean exactly the same thing for them. Come on now. Personally, I have never advocated inserting Zope 3 into Zope 2. Some people really wanted Zope 3 in Zope 2, so that they could use the new technology. So they added it. That's fine by me. But if they then turn around and say, Look we have Zope 3 in Zope 2, so you should also have Zope 2 in Zope 3., then I am complaining loudly, because I do not want to have anything to do with Zope 2. And it just means that I am becoming a Zope 2 developer again. Forget that! I'd rather fork Zope 3, then work on a version that has Zope 2 in it. It is just too much overhead for me to know all the involved technologies (Zope 2 and Five). I have barely time to keep up with Zope 3 and stay on top of it. I believe your assertion that you have to deal with Zope2 and become a Zope 2 developer again is just plain wrong. As wrong as Zope2 developers have to be Zope3 developers. jens ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Martijn Faassen wrote: Stephan Richter wrote: On Wednesday 23 November 2005 10:16, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at: http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository I am -1. If I could I would veto this proposal. Here is why: To be totally honest, I really, really don't care about Zope 2! I'll debate with you this reason. I don't think that this changes your dislike of merging the repositories and this argument is on a side-track and not intended to convince you of this. What my point is here is that your attitude about Zope 2 is wrong: as a pure-play Zope 3 developer you *should* care about Zope 2. Some of us have been doing quite a bit of work of bringing Zope 3 to the Zope 2 world. I believe that at least partially as a result of this, Zope 3 is getting a lot more attention from Zope 2 developers. I think that this attention is extremely valuable to the Zope 3 project. There is an awful lot of experience, skills and knowledge in the Zope 2 world that is immensely valuable to Zope 3 developers. We *don't* have a full respresentation of these extremely valuable perspectives in the Zope 3 development community right now. If Zope 2 developers get the impression that core Zope 3 developers don't give a shit about Zope 2, they may not be so likely to actually come on board. That would be a disastrous development indeed. We really need an increased connection between the Zope 2 world and the Zope 3 world. I couldn't have said it better, Martijn. Stephan might not care about the Zope 2 codebase (frankly, I'm mostly with him on that, which is why I'm working to improve it), but let's not forget that Zope 3 is currently actively managed by only 10 or so people. Everytime we make a release there are heroic efforts involved, mostly by Stephan himself. How long are we supposed to continue like this? Like Martijn, I strongly believe reuniting efforts will eventually mean *more* resources for Zope 3, not less (this is also a point where I disagre with Gary). As Martin pointed out with his own example, the reunification will tremendously lower the bar for more Zope 3 contributors which, given the time and resources other projects have and are willing to spend on the framework (e.g. thanks to Goldegg), should not be ignored. To give you another, much better example: Florent recently brought Zope 3 events ot Zope 2 and made a great effort in doing so. In return, this work now made him think about improving the Zope 3 object event hiearchy, the post to the zope3-dev list was even sent today. What better example of an improvement of Zope 3 due to Zope 2 integration can there be? Philipp This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Gary Poster wrote: Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at: http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository I already spoke with Philipp on IRC about this, but for the record, and speaking personally, and very arguably selfishly: -1. I think it will place too much burden on the small group of Zope 3 developers, some (many?) of whom do not develop or use Zope 2. You are correct and I'm not going to argue over facts. My perspective on those facts is different, though. The small group of Zope 3 developers, as you say yourself, could really use some help, couldn't it? I think a repository reunification (along with the development process reunification which has already happened for the most part), would actually shift more resources from Zope 2 to Zope 3 than the other way around. After all, all of the major Zope projects and solution providers do not argue with the fact that Zope 3 is the future. But, like Martin Aspeli nicely said, getting there is the hard part. Yes, I understand the corresponding response is that Zope 2 devs would theoretically contribute more to Zope 3. If the merge happens, I suppose we'll see if Zope 2 pollutes Zope 3, doesn't affect it, or helps it. Arguing about the future is a tough job. I don't think we have to be *that* speculative here. When some of the currently Zope-2-focused developers put their +1 on this proposal, I take it they also meant this as a commitment to further contribute to Zope 2 and 3. Thus by the amount of acceptance this proposal gathers, I think we can also measure the currently unused potential of Zope contributions. At least to a degree. Philipp This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] RE: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
Roger Ineichen wrote: Reading the response to this mail, I guess developer working on existing Zope2 projects agree on this proposal. And developer where build projects only based on Zope3 will not. As somebody how don't know Zope2 I'm -1 on this. I could repeat here what Martijn and I wrote in response to Stephan... I know that you, Roger, have been contributing a lot to new exciting features in Zope 3. In doing so, you would never have to worry about Zope 2 because Zope 2 will only explicitly use certain Zope 3 features. I believe you would in fact benefit from the Zope 2 combination because the features you write would get much better exposure to a large install and development base that is *hungry* for Zope 3 technology. Also, you could combine efforts with people who, until now, have been implementing framework-level stuff in their own projects. Bottom line: I find the risk of your having to dig through horrible Zope 2 code much lower than the chance of joint efforts on Zope 3 technology. Of course, it'd be quite surprising if I didn't believe that as the author of the proposal *wink*. Philipp This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Dominik Huber [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Stephan Richter wrote: This may raise the contribution bar too high. IMO that 's the most important point. It raises the bar for Zope 3 developers a bit while lower the bar for Zope 2 developers tremendously. I'm looking at the bigger picture and see it all leans towards the positive, even for Zope 3 developers (joint efforts, more resources, bla bla. I could repeat myself...) Note that I also understand your motivation on voting -1 quite well. Leaving everything as it is is simply the easier thing to do. For the moment... Philipp This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Julien Anguenot wrote: Some Zope3 developers don't care about Zope2 and this is fair enough in my point of view. Zope2 starts to get old and appears to be really a mess compared to Zope3 in *2005*, plus it's not such an attractive platform as it used to be couple of years ago. (Don't get me wrong on this. Time just changed. I'm using Zope2 much more than Zope3 nowadays and still I like it even if I'm *dreaming* about only using a modern platform à la Zope3) I would fear that some new folks might find the Zope3 project much more confusing and less attractive because of the Zope2 mess around. (common mailing list, common repository etc...) Please, let's not mess up Zope3... Messing up Zope 3 is specifically not the intention of this proposal. It says so explicitly in the Your questions answered section. I think it's undebated that there will always be a Zope 3 distribution that contains the leanest and meanest Zope 3 components (what this distribution will look like in detail is something that Jim has been thinking about for some time now, but this is not part of this discussion). You state correctly that some Zope 3 developers don't care about Zope2. This might seem like a suitable point of view, but as Martijn pointed out very well, it's also a foolish one. It limits the acceptance of Zope 3 within the Zope community. Zope 2 is a mess, I give you that. I'm not asking any Zope 3 developer to re-embrace it, though. In fact, the idea of this proposal is not that Zope 2 is going to stay with us forever. It is about speeding up the convergence process! There are a good amount of people, Martijn and me included, who are working towards improving Zope 2 and we simply want to attract more people to help us. Zope 2's architecture might be shitty, but its community is bigger, don't forget that. The few Zope 3 developers [that] don't care about Zope2 are the minority and I think they could use the help from the rest of the Zope community. Philipp This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
While I don't agree with the +1 voters, I understand and appreciate their arguments. That said... On Nov 23, 2005, at 6:49 PM, Jens Vagelpohl wrote: People keep telling Zope2 developers that the inclusion of Zope3 doesn't mean you have to touch it, if you don't use it it is just inert code that won't cause any change in your Zope2 development style. Ok, I accept that, no problem at all. But why should this be any different for Zope3 developers, obviously including Zope2 code would mean exactly the same thing for them. Come on now. ...this is not true. Zope 2 depends on Zope 3, via Five. Zope 3 does not depend on Zope 2. Therefore, making a change in Zope 2 cannot affect functionality in the slightest, let alone break a test, in Zope 3. The same cannot be said of the reverse. Zope 2 devs don't have to touch Zope 3 unless they want to leverage some cool new feature--in which case they are Zope Five devs, probably. Zope 3 devs must touch Zope 2, in this new world order, whether they want to or not, when changes break the stuff that Zope 2 has leveraged. To grant a point to Philipp's argument, it's possible that changes that break Zope 2 are non-backwards-compatible changes in Zope 3 that should have been caught. But consider this story: a Zope 3 dev changes something and deprecates an API. As part of the dev's responsibility, the checkin also makes all code in Zope 3 use the replacement API. Now Zope 2 works, but is generating deprecation warnings whenever the deprecated API is called. Is it the Zope 3 dev's responsibility to change Zope 2 to eliminate the deprecation warnings? What about in the following release when the old Zope 3 API is eliminated--whose responsibility is it then to fix Zope 2? If you view Zope 2 as a downstream client of Zope 3, you probably give one answer; if you view the two projects as a mingled whole, you probably give another. The question here is effectively whether all Zope 3 developers must become Zope 'Five' developers. As you said, Zope 2 developers can choose to proceed essentially unaffected. Zope 3 devs could not. Gary ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Julien Anguenot wrote: Some Zope3 developers don't care about Zope2 and this is fair enough in my point of view. Zope2 starts to get old and appears to be really a mess compared to Zope3 in *2005*, plus it's not such an attractive platform as it used to be couple of years ago. (Don't get me wrong on this. Time just changed. I'm using Zope2 much more than Zope3 nowadays and still I like it even if I'm *dreaming* about only using a modern platform à la Zope3) I would fear that some new folks might find the Zope3 project much more confusing and less attractive because of the Zope2 mess around. (common mailing list, common repository etc...) Please, let's not mess up Zope3... [...] You state correctly that some Zope 3 developers don't care about Zope2. This might seem like a suitable point of view, but as Martijn pointed out very well, it's also a foolish one. It limits the acceptance of Zope 3 within the Zope community. And what about the acceptance of Zope3 *outside* the Zope community ? Zope3 will look like more complicated and confusing doing a merge. I'm more concerned about the acceptance of Zope3 outside the Zope community because Zope2 developers will have to move to Zope3 at a certain time. It's juste much more easier than for the first people. Zope 2 is a mess, I give you that. I'm not asking any Zope 3 developer to re-embrace it, though. In fact, the idea of this proposal is not that Zope 2 is going to stay with us forever. It is about speeding up the convergence process! I understand your motivations Philipp. I just think this is too early. When Zope2 will look like a Zope3 'configuration' then maybe it could be of interest. There are a good amount of people, Martijn and me included, who are working towards improving Zope 2 and we simply want to attract more people to help us. I still believe Zope2 developers will come on Zope3 pretty easily. The challenge is people outside the Zope community and I'm more worried about them. Zope 2's architecture might be shitty, but its community is bigger, don't forget that. I never said shitty. Take it easy on the interpretation. I'm using Zope2 for years and it's with what I'm working daily. I said *old* and it's different. It's not as attractive as it used to be couple of years ago. This is a fact. This is why Zope3 exists. I still believe your proposal would be a mistake at this point for Zope3. Cheers, J. - -- Julien Anguenot | Nuxeo RD (Paris, France) CPS Platform : http://www.cps-project.org Zope3 / ECM : http://www.z3lab.org mail: anguenot at nuxeo.com; tel: +33 (0) 6 72 57 57 66 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDhTLOGhoG8MxZ/pIRAmSwAJ0e8d2S/lyXgeTm3dAQgqBh50eJzwCeONEC 52QuaUKLeFESP+Ytar3NkDE= =bc5x -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 22:14, Gary Poster wrote: The question here is effectively whether all Zope 3 developers must become Zope 'Five' developers. As you said, Zope 2 developers can choose to proceed essentially unaffected. Zope 3 devs could not. Amen. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 21:48, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: It raises the bar for Zope 3 developers a bit while lower the bar for Zope 2 developers tremendously. I'm looking at the bigger picture and see it all leans towards the positive, even for Zope 3 developers (joint efforts, more resources, bla bla. I could repeat myself...) I totally disagree. I, as a Zope 3 developer, have to learn Zope 2 and Five. This raises the bar too high for me! Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 21:43, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: I know that you, Roger, have been contributing a lot to new exciting features in Zope 3. In doing so, you would never have to worry about Zope 2 because Zope 2 will only explicitly use certain Zope 3 features. I believe you would in fact benefit from the Zope 2 combination because the features you write would get much better exposure to a large install and development base that is *hungry* for Zope 3 technology. Also, you could combine efforts with people who, until now, have been implementing framework-level stuff in their own projects. So you think it is better to loose the existing Zope 3 developers in anticipation of more community involvement? This would be Zope 3's death blow as we know it, because it would stall Zope 3 for several months. Honestly, I rather have less exposure and keep the code base clean. Bottom line: I find the risk of your having to dig through horrible Zope 2 code much lower than the chance of joint efforts on Zope 3 technology. Of course, it'd be quite surprising if I didn't believe that as the author of the proposal *wink*. You are kidding, right? You know April 1st is not for another 4 months. In all honesty, I think you are downplaying the new overhead of Zope 3 developers too much. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 21:48, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Note that I also understand your motivation on voting -1 quite well. Leaving everything as it is is simply the easier thing to do. For the moment... I will always vote -1 on such a move. I just simply punishes all those early adopters of Zope 3 and throw it in their face. Great appreciation! Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Julien Anguenot wrote: And what about the acceptance of Zope3 *outside* the Zope community ? Zope3 will look like more complicated and confusing doing a merge. Why? The 'zope' namespace package is what Zope 3 is known as to outsiders and this will not be affected. I understand your motivations Philipp. I just think this is too early. Aha, it's at least good to hear that you don't condemn the idea itself. I too wondered whether it's too early or not. I think it's exactly the right time, as Zope 2 is embracing lots more Zope 3 technology. When Zope2 will look like a Zope3 'configuration' then maybe it could be of interest. Getting there is the hard part. This proposal is about easing that. I still believe Zope2 developers will come on Zope3 pretty easily. I think Martin Aspeli is not the only one who still has no clue on how to move forward beyond a certain Fivization of his Zope 2 products. If you do, then that's great, but I don't think everyone is in that fortunate situation. Zope 2's architecture might be shitty, but its community is bigger, don't forget that. I never said shitty. Take it easy on the interpretation. Yes, yes. You know how to interpret shitty very well... old, worn-out, inflated, etc... Seriously, when everyone gives gigakudos to Florent and offers him 10 gallons of beer for looking through Zope 2 security code, I think at least the maintainability of some of the Zope 2 code is shitty, or at least perceived to be shitty. I still believe your proposal would be a mistake at this point for Zope3. So it's not a matter *if* but *when*. We're already one step further. I personally take on Martijn's suggestion and vote for after 2.8/3.2 is out. Why? Because some people, including me, have some major proposals for zope3ifying Zope 2 in the top-drawer of their desk, most of which would happen in 2.10 I presume. Philipp This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 22:01, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Messing up Zope 3 is specifically not the intention of this proposal. It says so explicitly in the Your questions answered section. Though it is not your intend, the merge would in fact mess up the trunk, specifically from a Zope 3 developer's perspective. You state correctly that some Zope 3 developers don't care about Zope2. This might seem like a suitable point of view, but as Martijn pointed out very well, it's also a foolish one. It limits the acceptance of Zope 3 within the Zope community. How is it foolish? I have no need for Zope 2, so why should I maintain it? I only make money doing Zope 3 projects and as a hobby I only enjoy working with Zope 3 technologies. There is nothing in for me here. And this is true for any pure Zope 3 developer. Zope 2 is a mess, I give you that. I'm not asking any Zope 3 developer to re-embrace it, though. But I have to relearn it for the pure purpose of developing on the Zope 3 trunk. That's just not right! In fact, the idea of this proposal is not that Zope 2 is going to stay with us forever. It is about speeding up the convergence process! There are a good amount of people, Martijn and me included, who are working towards improving Zope 2 and we simply want to attract more people to help us. Yeah, you are forcing me to help you out! The few Zope 3 developers [that] don't care about Zope2 are the minority and I think they could use the help from the rest of the Zope community. It depends on the perspective you take. If you look at the whole community, then yes, we are probably in the minority (even though that counting all people that voted so far, there are more -1 votes). A more appropriate sample would be the people actually contributing to Zope 3 on a regular basis or the ones that exclusively use Zope 3. Using this group, we have about an 80-90% -1 vote count. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Stephan Richter wrote: I totally disagree. I, as a Zope 3 developer, have to learn Zope 2 and Five. What makes you think so? I, for one, have not the slightest clue of how zope.wfmc works. Still I'm able to contribute to Zope 3, am I not? If I refactor something, I might even have to touch zope.wfmc, but for the most part this could be very superficial. And if not, I have some trusty community members who can help me on a branch. It's been this way for years now, there's no compelling reason why it should change. Philipp This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Stephan Richter wrote: On Wednesday 23 November 2005 22:01, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Messing up Zope 3 is specifically not the intention of this proposal. It says so explicitly in the Your questions answered section. Though it is not your intend, the merge would in fact mess up the trunk, specifically from a Zope 3 developer's perspective. Really, *how* does it mess up the trunk? Half of the packages of Zope 2 are also in Zope 3 because they're either ZODB or Zope3-related anyway. Another quarter of the packages will go away within one year, I think (such as DocumentTemplate, StructuredText, etc., as they are duplicate implementations of zope.documenttemplate, zope.structuredtext, etc.). You state correctly that some Zope 3 developers don't care about Zope2. This might seem like a suitable point of view, but as Martijn pointed out very well, it's also a foolish one. It limits the acceptance of Zope 3 within the Zope community. How is it foolish? I have no need for Zope 2, so why should I maintain it? No one is asking you to maintain it. You're confusing maintance with bringing up to speed with refactorings. There is nothing in for me here. That I doubt. There's a lot of code and experience in the Zope 2 community which might be underestimated... Zope 2 is a mess, I give you that. I'm not asking any Zope 3 developer to re-embrace it, though. But I have to relearn it for the pure purpose of developing on the Zope 3 trunk. That's just not right! No one says you have relearn Zope 2; you merely have to run the tests. See my other post about this. In fact, the idea of this proposal is not that Zope 2 is going to stay with us forever. It is about speeding up the convergence process! There are a good amount of people, Martijn and me included, who are working towards improving Zope 2 and we simply want to attract more people to help us. Yeah, you are forcing me to help you out! So are you with zope.wfmc, zope.contentprovider, zope.viewlet and all those other things that you and others checked into Zope 3 and I have no clue about whatsoever. Sorry, this argument is moot because not too long ago the Zope 3 repository was strongly advertised as a place for people to put their Zope3-related software so that it would be kept up to speed with refactorings and such. If that offer was for non-Zope-core software, it should especially be good for Zope itself. The few Zope 3 developers [that] don't care about Zope2 are the minority and I think they could use the help from the rest of the Zope community. It depends on the perspective you take. If you look at the whole community, then yes, we are probably in the minority (even though that counting all people that voted so far, there are more -1 votes). A more appropriate sample would be the people actually contributing to Zope 3 on a regular basis or the ones that exclusively use Zope 3. Using this group, we have about an 80-90% -1 vote count. Sure, I realize that. Note however that I'm looking to get more Zope 3 contributors with this action. As I've pointed out before, I treat a +1 from an active Zope 2 developer as a commitment towards Zope 3 contributions. Even pure Zope 3 developers will benefit from that because it takes work off their shoulders. Philipp This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
Quoting Stephan Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wednesday 23 November 2005 21:43, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: I know that you, Roger, have been contributing a lot to new exciting features in Zope 3. In doing so, you would never have to worry about Zope 2 because Zope 2 will only explicitly use certain Zope 3 features. I believe you would in fact benefit from the Zope 2 combination because the features you write would get much better exposure to a large install and development base that is *hungry* for Zope 3 technology. Also, you could combine efforts with people who, until now, have been implementing framework-level stuff in their own projects. So you think it is better to loose the existing Zope 3 developers in anticipation of more community involvement? I think you're exaggerating here. No one would give up Zope 3 because the repository has a few extra packages laying around. This would be Zope 3's death blow as we know it, because it would stall Zope 3 for several months. Why would it stall Zope 3 development? Honestly, I rather have less exposure and keep the code base clean. The code base stays clean, I dunno how often I shall repeat it. The 'zope' package will continue to offer clean software in the style of Zope 3. As for the other packages, I didn't think it was necessary to say that we all want them to go away at point or another, as their functionality is being integrated (if not already present) in the 'zope' package. Bottom line: I find the risk of your having to dig through horrible Zope 2 code much lower than the chance of joint efforts on Zope 3 technology. Of course, it'd be quite surprising if I didn't believe that as the author of the proposal *wink*. You are kidding, right? You know April 1st is not for another 4 months. In all honesty, I think you are downplaying the new overhead of Zope 3 developers too much. Can you give me an example of what kind of overhead you see? I've tried to think hard about it and the only things I could come up with (as pointed out in the proposal ) are: * running Zope 2 tests in addition to Zope 3 tests; this is a no brainer. * if a test fails, fix it. Nearly *all* tests in Zope 2 that involve Zope 3 technology are in Five and they are doctests. No obscure magic, no horrible code. And for the 1% case of a huge refactoring, there can be joint efforts. I hereby offer my help to you for such cases (and I've done so in big refactorings in the early Zope 3 days, so this isn't new). Philipp This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On Thursday 24 November 2005 00:05, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Stephan Richter wrote: I totally disagree. I, as a Zope 3 developer, have to learn Zope 2 and Five. What makes you think so? I, for one, have not the slightest clue of how zope.wfmc works. Still I'm able to contribute to Zope 3, am I not? If I refactor something, I might even have to touch zope.wfmc, but for the most part this could be very superficial. And if not, I have some trusty community members who can help me on a branch. It's been this way for years now, there's no compelling reason why it should change. Except that I have made deep changes in the past that affect the entire architecture. And the changes were deep. If there would be a merge, don't expect me to ever make such contributions again. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Stephan Richter wrote: On Wednesday 23 November 2005 21:48, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Note that I also understand your motivation on voting -1 quite well. Leaving everything as it is is simply the easier thing to do. For the moment... I will always vote -1 on such a move. I just simply punishes all those early adopters of Zope 3 and throw it in their face. Great appreciation! You know I can turn this around and say that by focusing all development on Zope 3, the Zope development team left Zope 2 out there to die in its old ways of doing things, despite the fact that some sort of transition capabilities were promised for a long time (maybe I needed to remind of you of this...). A rewrite from scratch is always easy, but dealing with the transition and deprecations is the hard work which is now left up to people who were early adopters of Zope *2* and hoping for that promised transition. Great appreciation! As you can see, this angle at looking things doesn't get us anywhere and I would rather not pursue it further. What I want is a sensible transition for the future. And it's not like Zope 2 people aren't willing to put an effort in it... Philipp This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Stephan Richter wrote: On Thursday 24 November 2005 00:05, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Stephan Richter wrote: I totally disagree. I, as a Zope 3 developer, have to learn Zope 2 and Five. What makes you think so? I, for one, have not the slightest clue of how zope.wfmc works. Still I'm able to contribute to Zope 3, am I not? If I refactor something, I might even have to touch zope.wfmc, but for the most part this could be very superficial. And if not, I have some trusty community members who can help me on a branch. It's been this way for years now, there's no compelling reason why it should change. Except that I have made deep changes in the past that affect the entire architecture. And the changes were deep. If there would be a merge, don't expect me to ever make such contributions again. At least no one is expecting to make such big changes by yourself. Being stubborn and refusing to do further contributions, be they large or small, isn't going to get us anywhere. The people who are so far backing up this proposal have nothing but support to offer and you know that. Philipp This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
On Thursday 24 November 2005 00:25, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Quoting Stephan Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED]: This would be Zope 3's death blow as we know it, because it would stall Zope 3 for several months. Why would it stall Zope 3 development? Because you would immediately loose a bunch of contributors. Honestly, I rather have less exposure and keep the code base clean. The code base stays clean, I dunno how often I shall repeat it. The 'zope' package will continue to offer clean software in the style of Zope 3. As for the other packages, I didn't think it was necessary to say that we all want them to go away at point or another, as their functionality is being integrated (if not already present) in the 'zope' package. For me, anything that adds code to the file structure is clutter. Period. Can you give me an example of what kind of overhead you see? I've tried to think hard about it and the only things I could come up with (as pointed out in the proposal ) are: * running Zope 2 tests in addition to Zope 3 tests; this is a no brainer. Sure. * if a test fails, fix it. Nearly *all* tests in Zope 2 that involve Zope 3 technology are in Five and they are doctests. No obscure magic, no horrible code. And for the 1% case of a huge refactoring, there can be joint efforts. I hereby offer my help to you for such cases (and I've done so in big refactorings in the early Zope 3 days, so this isn't new). I know there will be frequent failures. This is unavoidable. Take this scenario. I often work on SchoolTool. When working on SchoolTool, I am also working with a writable Zope 3 trunk checkout. I now find a bug in Zope 3 (which I frequently do). I fix the bug in Zope 3, write a test, test the fix with SchoolTool and I am ready to check in. If I now get a failure in Zope 3 due to Five (which I do not know and do not want to learn), I rather work around the bug, instead of checking in a fix, since that is less overhead. One contribution lost. More cons: * One very substantial risk is the understanding of Zope 3 newcomers. I just sprinted with/mentored Paul Cardune (main developer of CanDo) this week and he tries diligently to learn Zope 3. They are also using the Zope 3 trunk, so they can immediately profit from the new features and make transitions easier. If the trunk becomes even larger, then the chance for Paul to see what fits together how becomes even larger. * We have been constantly trying to make the trunk smaller, and suddenly we blow it up? This does not fit. In fact, I would claim that zwiki and bugtracker should now be moved out of the trunk and placed into top-level dirs themselves. They should be tested using the buildbot. * I have a fear that people will be motivated to make Zope 3 changes to make them work better with Zope 2, inserting special code just for Zope 2. That would be about the worst case scenario I could imagine. Right now it is much easier to oversee the quality of Zope 3 and monitor the checkins. Once a merge happens, the control will get lost. I just do not have time to read Zope 2 checkins. I could come up with more, but I am too tired to think. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Really, *how* does it mess up the trunk? Half of the packages of Zope 2 are also in Zope 3 because they're either ZODB or Zope3-related anyway. Another quarter of the packages will go away within one year Perhaps that would be a more suitable time to consider such a proposal. not too long ago the Zope 3 repository was strongly advertised as a place for people to put their Zope3-related software so that it would be kept up to speed with refactorings and such. If that offer was for non-Zope-core software, it should especially be good for Zope itself. I think the time has come for this to change. With a maturing code base and with systems like BuildBot we should be able to assure cross project testing (between Zope 2, Zope 3, and non-core projects). Note however that I'm looking to get more Zope 3 contributors with this action. We do need to be careful that any such transition is handled correctly or we risk flooding Z3 with people (justifiably) unfamiliar with the project while simultaneously disenfranchising existing developers. -- Benji York Senior Software Engineer Zope Corporation ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On Thursday 24 November 2005 00:57, Benji York wrote: not too long ago the Zope 3 repository was strongly advertised as a place for people to put their Zope3-related software so that it would be kept up to speed with refactorings and such. If that offer was for non-Zope-core software, it should especially be good for Zope itself. I think the time has come for this to change. With a maturing code base and with systems like BuildBot we should be able to assure cross project testing (between Zope 2, Zope 3, and non-core projects). Right, Jim's main motivation for getting buildbot set up was so that we could do cross-project testing. Zope3/ should no longer be seen as a dumping place for add-on packages, including zwiki and bugtracker. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On Thursday 24 November 2005 00:41, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: At least no one is expecting to make such big changes by yourself. Being stubborn and refusing to do further contributions, be they large or small, isn't going to get us anywhere. The people who are so far backing up this proposal have nothing but support to offer and you know that. I am as stubborn refusing this proposal as you are pushing it. Right now there are more -1 votes than +1 votes. Maybe it is time retract the proposal? Furthermore, I have yet to see contributions for Zope 3 from people using Five. We are not even getting bug reports. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
--On 24. November 2005 07:09:00 +0100 Morten W. Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We are not even getting bug reports. Likely because Zope 3 *just-works* :-) -aj pgpXitw6jKDrm.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
Stephan Richter wrote: On Thursday 24 November 2005 00:25, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Quoting Stephan Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED]: This would be Zope 3's death blow as we know it, because it would stall Zope 3 for several months. Why would it stall Zope 3 development? Because you would immediately loose a bunch of contributors. You still haven't given me a good reason why we would actually *lose* contributors. Honestly, I rather have less exposure and keep the code base clean. The code base stays clean, I dunno how often I shall repeat it. The 'zope' package will continue to offer clean software in the style of Zope 3. As for the other packages, I didn't think it was necessary to say that we all want them to go away at point or another, as their functionality is being integrated (if not already present) in the 'zope' package. For me, anything that adds code to the file structure is clutter. Period. You're over-irrationalizing here. We all know that the Zope 2 code structure has flaws, but it's not like Zope 3 is perfect either. I don't think clutter is a real problem here, so let's not make it one. * if a test fails, fix it. Nearly *all* tests in Zope 2 that involve Zope 3 technology are in Five and they are doctests. No obscure magic, no horrible code. And for the 1% case of a huge refactoring, there can be joint efforts. I hereby offer my help to you for such cases (and I've done so in big refactorings in the early Zope 3 days, so this isn't new). I know there will be frequent failures. This is unavoidable. Take this scenario. I often work on SchoolTool. When working on SchoolTool, I am also working with a writable Zope 3 trunk checkout. I now find a bug in Zope 3 (which I frequently do). I fix the bug in Zope 3, write a test, test the fix with SchoolTool and I am ready to check in. If I now get a failure in Zope 3 due to Five (which I do not know and do not want to learn), I rather work around the bug, instead of checking in a fix, since that is less overhead. One contribution lost. Can you read and potentially fix doctests? I *know* you can :). Tell me, other than the fact that you keep saying you refuse to learn Five, makes fixing a Five doctest different from a, say, zope.app.tree doctest? It's not like you've modified a line here or there in other people's code before which is why your particular dislike of Five surprises me. More cons: * One very substantial risk is the understanding of Zope 3 newcomers. I just sprinted with/mentored Paul Cardune (main developer of CanDo) this week and he tries diligently to learn Zope 3. They are also using the Zope 3 trunk, so they can immediately profit from the new features and make transitions easier. If the trunk becomes even larger, then the chance for Paul to see what fits together how becomes even larger. I'm sure that Zope 3 newcomers can live with the fact to only use stuff from the 'zope' package. We've always said a repository checkout looks different and contains more than a distribution. If you use it, newcomer or not, don't complain about the additional stuff... And again, it's not like Zope 3 doesn't have additional stuff right now and it hasn't stopped Paul, has it. * We have been constantly trying to make the trunk smaller, and suddenly we blow it up? This does not fit. In fact, I would claim that zwiki and bugtracker should now be moved out of the trunk and placed into top-level dirs themselves. They should be tested using the buildbot. You'd be surprised, I agree. Zope 2 is different from zwiki and bugtracker, though. Zope 2 is tightly linked to Zope 3 now, technology-wise and, much much more importantly, release scheduling-wise. To quote Steve Alexander: You're comparing apples to an entire fruit salad served with cream. :) * I have a fear that people will be motivated to make Zope 3 changes to make them work better with Zope 2, inserting special code just for Zope 2. At least I expect code to be refactored to ease its reuse in Zope 2. This is one of the explicit goals mentioned in this proposal. I can take Florent's case as an example again. He got in touch with object events through the Zope 2 integration and he's now proposing a bugfix of that in Zope 3. Sure, his objective is making it work better in Zope 2. But seldomly a change like that would count as special code just for Zope 2. Also, good use cases have never prevented us from checking in any code. If that use case happens to occur in Zope 2 and *not* in Zope 3, so be it. It's still a use case, and it's not like it wouldn't find its way into Zope 3 in the long run; my point is to make it easy to do so. That would be about the worst case scenario I could imagine. Right now it is much easier to oversee the quality of Zope 3 and monitor the checkins. Once a merge happens, the control will get lost. I just do not have time to read Zope 2 checkins. Maybe we don't have to
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On 11/23/05, Stephan Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Using this group, we have about an 80-90% -1 vote count. I'll weigh in with a -1 as well, for all the reasons cited by the other -1 voters on this issue. Zope 2 and Zope 3 are far too different at this point. The only way I see for convergence to be a good thing is for Zope 2 to be essentially skin and configuration on top of Zope 3; I really don't want to end up with Zope 2. Jim's vision is strongly for convergence, and I'm sure he'll say that himself when he's back (he's away for a few days). I don't pretend to know what he'll say about this idea, though. I don't *think* he think's it's time, but he doesn't like people predicting what he'll say. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr.fdrake at gmail.com There is no wealth but life. --John Ruskin ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Benji York wrote: Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Really, *how* does it mess up the trunk? Half of the packages of Zope 2 are also in Zope 3 because they're either ZODB or Zope3-related anyway. Another quarter of the packages will go away within one year Perhaps that would be a more suitable time to consider such a proposal. Perhaps. Or perhaps it's exactly the right time for this proposal because of synergies. not too long ago the Zope 3 repository was strongly advertised as a place for people to put their Zope3-related software so that it would be kept up to speed with refactorings and such. If that offer was for non-Zope-core software, it should especially be good for Zope itself. I think the time has come for this to change. With a maturing code base and with systems like BuildBot we should be able to assure cross project testing (between Zope 2, Zope 3, and non-core projects). I agree that a buildbot system does solve problem #3 of my proposal (Zope 3 refactorings affect Zope 2), though only on the surface: we'd be knowing there's a problem but the person responsible for the refactoring can dump the responsiblity on someone else. Note however that I'm looking to get more Zope 3 contributors with this action. We do need to be careful that any such transition is handled correctly or we risk flooding Z3 with people (justifiably) unfamiliar with the project while simultaneously disenfranchising existing developers. I agree. This is why I've tried to put a lot of thought in this proposal and I'm inviting everyone to add your concerns as a (perhaps unanswered) question under the Your questions answered section. Philipp This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 04:56 +0100, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: I think Martin Aspeli is not the only one who still has no clue on how to move forward beyond a certain Fivization of his Zope 2 products. If you do, then that's great, but I don't think everyone is in that fortunate situation. I really, really appreciate Phil taking the time to propose this no matter what happens. But I don't have much of a dog in this fight either way. If the SVN merge happened, that'd be ok with me; if it didn't, that'd be ok too. I'd personally be more likely to contribute to Z3 if it did happen, but given the extent of my recent contributions to Z2 (minimal lately), that may not be such a win for anybody. So I'm +0 on the idea. If it did happen, I'd do my best to help solve Five test failures caused by reasonable Z3 changes. All that said, because I think it may be valuable to somebody, I'll try to provide a perspective about convergence from someone who: - Is a long-time Z2 developer. - Works with Z2 more or less exclusively. - Does more paid work than volunteer work on Z2. (e.g. it's largely just business now, not a passion). This will be pretty long. ;-) As opposed to about 8 months ago, I'm not in a position anymore where I have zero clue about Zope 3. That said, any cluefulness that I have about Zope 3 stuff has come largely as a result of using Five for customer projects. So I'm still pretty clueless about huge swathes of Z3. I'd of course like to be less clueless. I do most of my learning on the job, so in order to really begin to use Z3 in anger, I'll need to use it for paid work. But it's unlikely that I can port *existing* Z2 customer projects over to pure Zope 3 if only because I really can't ethically charge someone to do that, nor do people really want to pay for it even if I could. It's great to be able to use Five to gradually use Z3 things but they'll never be Z3-only apps. They work just fine now under Z2 and will for a few more years at least. There's just no reason to port them. Of course it's possible that some future customer apps will be Z3 apps. That said, most of the work I get these days is in one of the following categories: - We have a slow Zope 2 application, please make it faster. - We are Zope 2 developers and we need some help on a specific piece of a project. These projects are often not good Z3 candidates for the same don't fix it if it aint broke reasons I mention above about existing customer projects. However, when new work comes in where it's simply in the form of a set of requirements rather than an already-running code base, I can of course choose to use Z3. These kinds of opportunities have presented themselves a few times in the last year or so. But I have to admit that each time one has, I've decided to stick with Z2 because not doing so would mean reimplementing (or at least porting) a lot of stuff that I know already exists for Z2 but which either has no Z3 analogue or at least has no Z3 analogue that I could personally vouch for without doing a lot of research. It's not really *major* stuff... cache managers, database adapters, transactional mail host tools, active directory connectors, heavy production sessioning requirements, blah blah blah. Any one of which could probably be researched in a day and coded up in less than another day. But it's a day and a half that I'd need to bill the customer for. Those days add up. And I like getting repeat business, so I try to keep customers happy by not taking them down ideological rabbit holes. Of course, there's a market bias here. I get more Z2 work because I've been doing Z2 work for a long time. I'm also currently much more valuable as a Z2 developer for the same reason. as As a Z3 book author, Stephan likely gets offers for work involving Z3 more than he does for work involving Z2. So it's easy to get tunnel-vision on both sides. Some observations that may be due to tunnel-vision that lead me away from developing pure Z3 apps: - There doesn't seem to be as much of a commitment in the Z3 community to backwards compatibility as there is for Z2. Notes like Stephan's last one where he says I have made deep changes in the past that affect the entire architecture as if this may happen again at any time are pretty scary. It seems to imply that Z3 is still in an alpha phase. I know *the software* isn't but if this sort of deep changes are still deemed necessary, the design appears to be, which makes it almost completely uninteresting to use for production systems. Z2, for all its other failings, makes deep commitments about backwards compatibility. This shackles it in many respects but it also makes it an attractive development platform for people who are concerned about just getting the job done and having their software work over a long period of time across major releases. - Z3 has naive or non-battle-tested implementations of key services.
[Zope-PAS] Re: OpenID PAS Plugin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Brian Ellin wrote: PAS Developers, I'm working on an OpenID PAS Authentication plugin for zope. For those of you who are not familiar with OpenID, it is a decentralized URL-based identity system originally developed by livejournal.com. For more info have a look at openid.net. OpenID authentication is performed under the user's supervision. A typical login session, and from a user's perspective looks something like this: Scenario: Trying to log in to example.com with server.com as my openid server 1) User visits example.com(running Zope) and enters her OpenID URL into the login form. 2) example.com must verify that the User is actually who they say they are, and does so by contacting the openid server for the URL. This is done by sending an HTTP redirect through the user's browser to server.com with some info attached to the url. 3) Server.com asks the user if they trust example.com with their identity, and if so, then sends a redirect back to the example.com with some more info emebeded in the URL for verification. 4) User is loggen into example.com with their OpenID. Leaving out all the details of OpenID, my plugin needs to at least be able to send a redirect to server.com (Step 2) before the authenticateCredentials step(Step 3). Where, and through what mechanism is the right place to put this processing and redirect? At first glance, it looks like I should be sending the redirect(Step 2) after a custom extractCredentials, but i'm not sure exactlty how to do this. Does this sound correct? I could use a nudge in the right direction here. I've been using the GMailAuthPlugin as inspiration for my plugin. https://svn.plone.org/svn/collective/PASPlugins/GMailAuthPlugin/ Your plugin needs to implement IChallengePlugin, so that when credentials are needed, it gets called; at that point, it redirects. The extractCredentials stuff will then need to pick off whatever values are needed from the URL passed from server.com, and somehow arrange to persist them (e.g., in the session) for future requests. Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDhN3L+gerLs4ltQ4RAiUmAJwIoUDSkKHwxt1c4cmz0QwB9T9eZwCcD/ZU JaPX0DH+slryfYEaVY3QdnM= =fC52 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-PAS mailing list Zope-PAS@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-pas
[Zope] standard_error_message as PageTemplate?
hi there! is it possible to replace the standard_error_message dtml method by a page template? has anybody done this? seems like i don't get error_type, error_tb etc... regards, juergen herrmann ___ XLhost.de - eXperts in Linux hosting Jürgen Herrmann Bruderwöhrdstraße 15b, DE-93051 Regensburg Fon: +49 (0)700 XLHOSTDE [0700 95467833] Fax: +49 (0)721 151 463027 WEB: http://www.XLhost.de ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] standard_error_message as PageTemplate?
On 11/23/05, Jürgen Herrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hi there! is it possible to replace the standard_error_message dtml method by a page template? has anybody done this? seems like i don't get error_type, error_tb etc... Really?! I remember doing it once and I think it was all there in the options namespace. Couldn't find the pagetemplate right now but at least this might give you some hope. Try creating it as a python method eg. class Site(...): def standard_error_message(self, *a, **k): print str(a) + str(k) regards, juergen herrmann ___ XLhost.de - eXperts in Linux hosting Jürgen Herrmann Bruderwöhrdstraße 15b, DE-93051 Regensburg Fon: +49 (0)700 XLHOSTDE [0700 95467833] Fax: +49 (0)721 151 463027 WEB: http://www.XLhost.de ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ) -- Peter Bengtsson, work www.fry-it.com home www.peterbe.com hobby www.issuetrackerproduct.com ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] HTML to PDF.
Chris Withers wrote: A tool to do what, specifically? A Front-End to design the PDF format. Like Jasper Reports, but one which works with python and reporlab. :) Thanks. Fernando Lujan ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] HTML to PDF.
--On 23. November 2005 16:08:42 -0200 Fernando Lujan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris Withers wrote: A tool to do what, specifically? A Front-End to design the PDF format. Like Jasper Reports, but one which works with python and reporlab. :) Did you look at XSLFO as suggested. It really works -aj pgpvNyb7CTeie.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] HTML to PDF.
Andreas Jung wrote: --On 23. November 2005 16:08:42 -0200 Fernando Lujan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris Withers wrote: A tool to do what, specifically? A Front-End to design the PDF format. Like Jasper Reports, but one which works with python and reporlab. :) Did you look at XSLFO as suggested. It really works Yes and I found this product: http://www.stylusstudio.com/xml_screenshots.html With this tool, I can create a HTML export to a XML. And with this XML, can I generate dinamic PDF files on the fly with the reportlab's software? Thanks in advance. Fernando Lujan ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] HTML to PDF.
Fernando, take a look at HTML_ToPDF (www.rustyparts.com). It's free and it works. - Asad On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Fernando Lujan wrote: Andreas Jung wrote: --On 23. November 2005 16:08:42 -0200 Fernando Lujan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris Withers wrote: A tool to do what, specifically? A Front-End to design the PDF format. Like Jasper Reports, but one which works with python and reporlab. :) Did you look at XSLFO as suggested. It really works Yes and I found this product: http://www.stylusstudio.com/xml_screenshots.html With this tool, I can create a HTML export to a XML. And with this XML, can I generate dinamic PDF files on the fly with the reportlab's software? Thanks in advance. Fernando Lujan ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ) ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] HTML to PDF.
--On 23. November 2005 16:45:00 -0200 Fernando Lujan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes and I found this product: http://www.stylusstudio.com/xml_screenshots.html You should read my former answer carefully. I pointed you to the tool CSSTOXSLFO and the Xinc PDF converter (www.lunasil.com). Both are Java based applications and can be integrated into Python and Zope. -aj pgp6Q1tYhEz84.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] HTML to PDF.
Andreas Jung wrote: --On 23. November 2005 16:45:00 -0200 Fernando Lujan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes and I found this product: http://www.stylusstudio.com/xml_screenshots.html You should read my former answer carefully. I pointed you to the tool CSSTOXSLFO and the Xinc PDF converter (www.lunasil.com). Both are Java based applications and can be integrated into Python and Zope. Hi Andreas, Yes... I saw this tool. But the company wants a python solution for this... :( Thanks anyway. :) Fernando Lujan ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] HTML to PDF.
Fernando. There is a python equivalent of the PHP script HTML_ToPDF.php that you can use as well. And it's free as well! - Asad On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Fernando Lujan wrote: Andreas Jung wrote: --On 23. November 2005 16:45:00 -0200 Fernando Lujan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes and I found this product: http://www.stylusstudio.com/xml_screenshots.html You should read my former answer carefully. I pointed you to the tool CSSTOXSLFO and the Xinc PDF converter (www.lunasil.com). Both are Java based applications and can be integrated into Python and Zope. Hi Andreas, Yes... I saw this tool. But the company wants a python solution for this... :( Thanks anyway. :) Fernando Lujan ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ) ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] HTML to PDF.
--On 23. November 2005 17:05:36 -0200 Fernando Lujan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes... I saw this tool. But the company wants a python solution for this... :( Then bake one :-) -aj pgpI7W4nVbcpG.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] HTML to PDF.
No need to bake a pie when you can buy one at the grocery store! Asad :) On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Andreas Jung wrote: --On 23. November 2005 17:05:36 -0200 Fernando Lujan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes... I saw this tool. But the company wants a python solution for this... :( Then bake one :-) -aj ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] HTML to PDF.
Am Mittwoch, den 23.11.2005, 14:29 -0500 schrieb Asad Habib: No need to bake a pie when you can buy one at the grocery store! You can? Where is the store where I can buy the python wrapped render/print lib of gecko/mozilla please? ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] HTML to PDF.
Absolutely! Google is a man's best friend. - Asad On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Tino Wildenhain wrote: Am Mittwoch, den 23.11.2005, 14:29 -0500 schrieb Asad Habib: No need to bake a pie when you can buy one at the grocery store! You can? Where is the store where I can buy the python wrapped render/print lib of gecko/mozilla please? ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Spam] Re: [Zope] HTML to PDF.
Asad Habib wrote: Fernando. There is a python equivalent of the PHP script HTML_ToPDF.php that you can use as well. And it's free as well! Thanks Asad. I already downloaded it... How can I use it passing a HTML file and returning a PDF to the browser? Did you already work with it? Thanks. Fernando Lujan ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Zope-2.8.1, LocalFS, and the importance of _p_jar
John Ziniti wrote at 2005-11-22 13:26 -0500: I've encountered the issue described here: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope/2005-August/161120.html on a recently upgraded Zope using LocalFS. I have tracked down the issue to the fact that the object that LocalFS hands to ZODB is a WrapperObject, and this object does not have an oid. This raises an AssertionError during the _commit method of ZODB.Connection. Congratulation! The problem I have with my solution is that I have no clue what _p_jar is. It is the ZODB connection a persistent object was loaded from. Only a persistent object (which come from the ZODB) should have it. Non persitent wrappers should lack it. -- Dieter ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Re: External Methods, Proxy Roles, and Executable Security
Tres Seaver wrote at 2005-11-22 16:51 -0500: ... The actual problem here is a confusion of authorization with containment constraints: the CopySupport code is using a single check to test both, which makes it impossible to do the Right Thing (TM): either the proxy roles should be taken into account, in which case the containment constraint may be violated, or they shouldn't, in which case a proxy-role-granted script cannot be used to perform a controlled paste which would otherwise not be authorized. Not sure that I follow you: In my view, all_meta_types can be used to enforce containment constraints. CopySupport handles this it a perfect fashion. After this containment constraints check, it checks that the copying/moving/renaming user has the right to add the object in the destination folder (it fact, it checks that the creating action can be traversed to, which is a bit different and fails when the action contains a query string). Modern versions take proxy roles into account. The problem is that trusted code lacks a means to set proxy roles -- thus, it cannot do what untrusted code with appropriate proxy roles can. -- Dieter ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
[Zope] init.d script and out of place instances
Hi, As far as I can see and tried, the zope2.8 script only deals with instances which are created in the default instance directory, /var/lib/zope2.8/instance/. I would prefer to keep a specific instance of zope in a different directory, together with other related directories, e.g. files from LocalFS. That is, I prefer to have all directories of the application, zope or not, under a common directory. Is there anything wrong with this approach?? I tried to symlink into the instance into /var/lib/zope2.8/instance but the start script fails. BTW, where are the messages logged? (I'm running Ubuntu) Is there any solution? Is this specific to the distribution? Regards, Fernando ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] init.d script and out of place instances
On 23 Nov 2005, at 23:59, Fernando Martins wrote: Hi, As far as I can see and tried, the zope2.8 script only deals with instances which are created in the default instance directory, /var/lib/zope2.8/instance/. I would prefer to keep a specific instance of zope in a different directory, together with other related directories, e.g. files from LocalFS. That is, I prefer to have all directories of the application, zope or not, under a common directory. Is there anything wrong with this approach?? I tried to symlink into the instance into /var/lib/zope2.8/instance but the start script fails. BTW, where are the messages logged? (I'm running Ubuntu) Is there any solution? Is this specific to the distribution? Zope itself does not ship with an init.d script. So yes, this is most likely a distribution/packaging issue that should be brought to the packagers' attention. jens ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
[Zope] Does ZWiki compromise Win2003 security behind a firewall?
Yes or no. OK, I know it's not that simple. I am working in an agency that employs a third party to manage our network. The third party is reluctant to install Zope and ZWiki for me, claiming that this will open the system to potential attacks. The wiki would be for use by agency personnel only and be available on a non-routable address, behind a firewall. Could someone tell me how this could be a security risk? Thanks for any ideas. Bill ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Does ZWiki compromise Win2003 security behind a firewall?
On 24 Nov 2005, at 00:00, Bill Bell wrote: Yes or no. OK, I know it's not that simple. I am working in an agency that employs a third party to manage our network. The third party is reluctant to install Zope and ZWiki for me, claiming that this will open the system to potential attacks. The wiki would be for use by agency personnel only and be available on a non-routable address, behind a firewall. Could someone tell me how this could be a security risk? It cannot. The people who claim that are, to put it mildly, clueless. It looks like they are operating on the typical principal of I don't know it, so I don't like it. jens ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] DateTime mess
Hi Jürgen, Many thanks for even thinking about looking at the DateTime debacle ;) Jürgen Herrmann wrote: Well, that would be cool. Just a question: How do you plan to keep and verify backwards compatibility? Any database, with any type of DateTime object, must work transparently. 100% compatibility isn't desireable, because its broken atm ;P Well yes, but you don't want to force people to change in an unpleasant way. From what I can see, DateTime _should_ just be a lightweight wrapper around Python's datetime.datetime to add the extra formatting commands, helper methods and zodb persistence. However, it isn't, and I don't think changing it to be so is the way to go. What I _would_ like to see is a new package that works with both Zope 3 and Zope 2 and offers exactly this. We could advocate switching to this, with DateTime becoming deprecated and removed in, say, Zope 2.10. I wonder if Zope 3 has something that meets these needs already? Perhaps you could have a dig and find out on [EMAIL PROTECTED] cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Zope-2.8.1, LocalFS, and the importance of _p_jar
John Ziniti wrote: The problem I have with my solution is that I have no clue what _p_jar is. It's all to do with ZODB persistence. I'm not sure why the wrapper was ever given a _p_jar, it's probably not a good idea, but then LocalFS is very old but was very good at the time, so there's likely to be a good reason for it to be there :-S I dunno, try contact Jonathan Farr, the product's author and see if he can remember. Other than that, maybe ask on zodb-dev@zope.org about any problems you may experience from removing it :-S My wories aren't so much about persistence, but whether these wrappers will play nicely with the transation framework without a _p_jar. They should, but I wouldn't want to bet on it... good luck! Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
