date:20070112

[Zope-CMF] Re: Portal users and some other stuff

2007-01-12 Thread yuppie


Hi Charlie!


Charlie Clark wrote:


Am 12.01.2007 um 14:35 schrieb Jens Vagelpohl:


Here is the new implementation for event_edit_form and event_view:
http://svn.zope.org/CMF/trunk/CMFCalendar/browser/event.py?rev=71045&view=markup 



There you go, even better ;)


Indeed, nice to see all those horrible decorators have gone! Now that my 
content-type is sort of working I can afford to give this a go. Does 
this have dependencies on the current svn trunk or will it work with CMF 
2.0?


This will not work with CMF 2.0. It depends on CMFDefault.formlib and 
other code that exists only on the trunk.


I use the trunk in production and it looks quite stable. If you are not 
afraid of possible API changes (the trunk is still alpha, so new APIs 
are not frozen yet), using the trunk might not be a bad choice.



Cheers,

Yuppie

___
Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests

Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: Portal users and some other stuff

2007-01-12 Thread Charlie Clark



Am 12.01.2007 um 14:35 schrieb Jens Vagelpohl:


Here is the new implementation for event_edit_form and event_view:
http://svn.zope.org/CMF/trunk/CMFCalendar/browser/event.py? 
rev=71045&view=markup


There you go, even better ;)


Indeed, nice to see all those horrible decorators have gone! Now that  
my content-type is sort of working I can afford to give this a go.  
Does this have dependencies on the current svn trunk or will it work  
with CMF 2.0?


Charlie

--
Charlie Clark
Helmholtzstr. 20
Düsseldorf
D- 40215
Tel: +49-211-938-5360
GSM: +49-178-782-6226



___
Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests

Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: Portal users and some other stuff

2007-01-12 Thread Jens Vagelpohl


-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1


On 12 Jan 2007, at 14:19, yuppie wrote:
Please note that this code is no longer actively maintained. The  
forms currently implemented as skin methods will be replaced by  
generated views using formlib.


Here is the new implementation for event_edit_form and event_view:
http://svn.zope.org/CMF/trunk/CMFCalendar/browser/event.py? 
rev=71045&view=markup


There you go, even better ;)

jens



-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFFp46nRAx5nvEhZLIRAuM2AJ9bpROKiY19HNKRFrnso8/k1YPn+wCfbjY+
daTxlXNlZQyTZPtfvwjWMpY=
=hAKJ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests

[Zope-CMF] Re: Portal users and some other stuff

2007-01-12 Thread yuppie


Hi Charlie!


Charlie Clark wrote:
For the necessary forms, at least based on the CMF Event code, it seems 
to me that code like


options['title'] = form.get('title', context.Title())
options['text'] = form.get('text', context.text)
options['text_format'] = form.get('text_format', context.text_format)
options['headline'] = form.get('headline', context.headline)
options['teaser'] = form.get('teaser', context.teaser)
options['category'] = form.get('category', context.category)
options['keywords'] = form.get('keywords', context.keywords)
options['resources'] = form.get('resources', context.resources)

could be optimised in the context could be treated as a dictionary 
object, ie. supported get.


Please note that this code is no longer actively maintained. The forms 
currently implemented as skin methods will be replaced by generated 
views using formlib.


Here is the new implementation for event_edit_form and event_view:
http://svn.zope.org/CMF/trunk/CMFCalendar/browser/event.py?rev=71045&view=markup


Cheers,

Yuppie

___
Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests

[Zope-CMF] CMF Tests: 9 OK

2007-01-12 Thread CMF Tests Summarizer

Summary of messages to the cmf-tests list.
Period Thu Jan 11 12:00:00 2007 UTC to Fri Jan 12 12:00:00 2007 UTC.
There were 9 messages: 9 from CMF Unit Tests.


Tests passed OK
---

Subject: OK : CMF-1.5 Zope-2.7 Python-2.3.6 : Linux
From: CMF Unit Tests
Date: Thu Jan 11 21:46:23 EST 2007
URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/cmf-tests/2007-January/003776.html

Subject: OK : CMF-1.5 Zope-2.8 Python-2.3.6 : Linux
From: CMF Unit Tests
Date: Thu Jan 11 21:47:57 EST 2007
URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/cmf-tests/2007-January/003777.html

Subject: OK : CMF-1.5 Zope-2.9 Python-2.4.4 : Linux
From: CMF Unit Tests
Date: Thu Jan 11 21:49:27 EST 2007
URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/cmf-tests/2007-January/003778.html

Subject: OK : CMF-1.6 Zope-2.8 Python-2.3.6 : Linux
From: CMF Unit Tests
Date: Thu Jan 11 21:50:57 EST 2007
URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/cmf-tests/2007-January/003779.html

Subject: OK : CMF-1.6 Zope-2.9 Python-2.4.4 : Linux
From: CMF Unit Tests
Date: Thu Jan 11 21:52:27 EST 2007
URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/cmf-tests/2007-January/003780.html

Subject: OK : CMF-2.0 Zope-2.9 Python-2.4.4 : Linux
From: CMF Unit Tests
Date: Thu Jan 11 21:53:57 EST 2007
URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/cmf-tests/2007-January/003781.html

Subject: OK : CMF-2.0 Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.4 : Linux
From: CMF Unit Tests
Date: Thu Jan 11 21:55:27 EST 2007
URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/cmf-tests/2007-January/003782.html

Subject: OK : CMF-trunk Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.4 : Linux
From: CMF Unit Tests
Date: Thu Jan 11 21:56:57 EST 2007
URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/cmf-tests/2007-January/003783.html

Subject: OK : CMF-trunk Zope-trunk Python-2.4.4 : Linux
From: CMF Unit Tests
Date: Thu Jan 11 21:58:27 EST 2007
URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/cmf-tests/2007-January/003784.html

___
Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests

Re: [Zope-CMF] Portal users and some other stuff

2007-01-12 Thread Jens Vagelpohl


-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1


On 12 Jan 2007, at 12:26, Charlie Clark wrote:



Am 12.01.2007 um 10:13 schrieb Jens Vagelpohl:

That's a matter of taste. I like explicit, so I prefer the  
existing method.


Explicit is better than implicit but I don't see what's wrong with  
having an explicit list of fields through which to loop, as long as  
the call is the same as this reduces typos and makes things easier  
to manage. Of course, exposing all attributes by allowing __get__  
to be the same as getattr can cause problems for objects that are  
not simply based on dictionaries.


You don't need to tell me this, it's a matter of taste and if you  
want to do something different in your code please do it :)  If  
you're arguing that the CMF should be changed in this regard than I  
can't help thinking that this is a whole lot of discussion for a tiny  
minute detail and there's a lot more important things that could need  
help and fixing.



I was initially confused that the context was the same as the  
instance of my content-type and didn't support this as I use this  
idiom quite frequently to reduce my typos. Is this too much of an  
edge case to warrant the extension in general (but I'm free to do  
it myself) or perhaps an outdated methodology?


I'm not sure what this paragraph means.


It was quite late...

In PythonScripts I quite often use
context.get('objectname') rather than context.objectname for  
anything programmatic. It seems to me that there is a case for  
making certain attributes of content-types available via get so  
that dispatching can be used where appropriate.


I have a feeling this is another case of personal preference that  
really doesn't make any difference in real life, don't you think? See  
above.


If you have excess programming energy I'd love you to look at open  
CMF collector issues and take on some of them, instead of debating  
small details  ;)


jens




-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFFp3HrRAx5nvEhZLIRAsnoAJ9kgf1kiGPzvSxeJupSFgCiXHJQ1wCdHVX7
uoOh8xK8X3mbFGs2RJOTvnY=
=2DSu
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests

Re: [Zope-CMF] Portal users and some other stuff

2007-01-12 Thread Charlie Clark



Am 12.01.2007 um 10:13 schrieb Jens Vagelpohl:

That's a matter of taste. I like explicit, so I prefer the existing  
method.


Explicit is better than implicit but I don't see what's wrong with  
having an explicit list of fields through which to loop, as long as  
the call is the same as this reduces typos and makes things easier to  
manage. Of course, exposing all attributes by allowing __get__ to be  
the same as getattr can cause problems for objects that are not  
simply based on dictionaries.



I was initially confused that the context was the same as the  
instance of my content-type and didn't support this as I use this  
idiom quite frequently to reduce my typos. Is this too much of an  
edge case to warrant the extension in general (but I'm free to do  
it myself) or perhaps an outdated methodology?


I'm not sure what this paragraph means.


It was quite late...

In PythonScripts I quite often use
context.get('objectname') rather than context.objectname for anything  
programmatic. It seems to me that there is a case for making certain  
attributes of content-types available via get so that dispatching can  
be used where appropriate.





If I need to add attributes to portal users such as their full  
name, is it best to customise the member object for my site or to  
use a plugin?


All you need to do is to add the desired property to the list of  
properties in the member data tool, and then extend the preferences  
form and its handlers with your new property (untested off the top  
of my head).


Thanks. Works as expected.

Charlie

--
Charlie Clark
Helmholtzstr. 20
Düsseldorf
D- 40215
Tel: +49-211-938-5360
GSM: +49-178-782-6226



___
Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests

Re: [Zope-CMF] Portal users and some other stuff

2007-01-12 Thread Jens Vagelpohl


-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1


On 11 Jan 2007, at 23:28, Charlie Clark wrote:
For the necessary forms, at least based on the CMF Event code, it  
seems to me that code like


options['title'] = form.get('title', context.Title())
options['text'] = form.get('text', context.text)
options['text_format'] = form.get('text_format', context.text_format)
options['headline'] = form.get('headline', context.headline)
options['teaser'] = form.get('teaser', context.teaser)
options['category'] = form.get('category', context.category)
options['keywords'] = form.get('keywords', context.keywords)
options['resources'] = form.get('resources', context.resources)

could be optimised in the context could be treated as a dictionary  
object, ie. supported get.


That's a matter of taste. I like explicit, so I prefer the existing  
method.



I was initially confused that the context was the same as the  
instance of my content-type and didn't support this as I use this  
idiom quite frequently to reduce my typos. Is this too much of an  
edge case to warrant the extension in general (but I'm free to do  
it myself) or perhaps an outdated methodology?


I'm not sure what this paragraph means.


If I need to add attributes to portal users such as their full  
name, is it best to customise the member object for my site or to  
use a plugin?


All you need to do is to add the desired property to the list of  
properties in the member data tool, and then extend the preferences  
form and its handlers with your new property (untested off the top of  
my head).


jens


-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFFp1FTRAx5nvEhZLIRAh+FAJ4h+rwjQddNZmgQxC9VR5YM/mIbkACfdApq
C7k1wHBdfTuf4BUvHoIqRe0=
=oxjF
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests

[Zope-CMF] CMF Collector: Open Issues

2007-01-12 Thread tseaver

The following supporters have open issues assigned to them in this collector
(http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF).

Assigned and Open


  mhammond

- "Windows DevelopmentMode penalty in CMFCore.DirectoryView",
  [Accepted] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/366


Pending / Deferred Issues

- "FSPropertiesObject.py cannot handle multiline input for lines, text 
attributes",
  [Deferred] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/271

- "Can't invalidate skin items in a RAMCacheManager",
  [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/343

- "workflow notify success should be after reindex",
  [Deferred] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/389

- "Possible bug when using a BTreeFolder Member folder",
  [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/441

- "Proxy Roles not Working/Applied to Worflow Transition Scripts",
  [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/449

- "safe_html filters some tags which should probably not be filtered",
  [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/452

- "purge_old in runAllImportSteps not working",
  [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/455

- "PUT handling for Events is broken",
  [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/458

- "Danger from Caching Policy Manager",
  [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/460


Pending / Deferred Features

- "Favorite.py: queries and anchors in remote_url",
  [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/26

- "DefaultDublinCore should have Creator property",
  [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/61

- "Document.py: universal newlines",
  [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/174

- "portal_type is undefined in initialization code",
  [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/248

- "CMFTopic Does Not Cache",
  [Deferred] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/295

- "Wishlist: a flag that tags the selected action.",
  [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/301

- "CMFDefault should make use of allowCreate()",
  [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/340

- "Nested Skins",
  [Deferred] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/377

- "CatalogVariableProvider code + tests",
  [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/378

- "manage_doCustomize() : minor additions",
  [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/382

- "CMF needs View-based TypeInformation",
  [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/437

- "Marker attributes should be deprecated",
  [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/440

- "New getNextEvent Method",
  [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/462



___
Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests

[Zope-CMF] Re: Portal users and some other stuff

Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: Portal users and some other stuff

Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: Portal users and some other stuff

[Zope-CMF] Re: Portal users and some other stuff

[Zope-CMF] CMF Tests: 9 OK

Re: [Zope-CMF] Portal users and some other stuff

Re: [Zope-CMF] Portal users and some other stuff

Re: [Zope-CMF] Portal users and some other stuff

[Zope-CMF] CMF Collector: Open Issues

9 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information