Re: [Zope-dev] Re: ZCatalog getObject broken
Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A, B and C are folders nested in each other i.e. A/B/C. A user does not have access to A and B but he does have access to C. If getObject uses restrictedTraverse it returns None immediately when traversing A, even though the user is allowed to access C. If getObject was working properly it would have returned C. Ah, okay, I thought that's what you meant, but I hoped it wasn't. The fact that you expect this to work is a bug in Zope's security machinery, IMHO, but sadly only IMHO it appears. Huh? That's fundamental to Zope's security model. I would have no problem with the above behaviour if getObject raised Unauthorized rather than returned None. Your patch still had it returning None, IIRC, why did it do that? The rest of the discussion basically boils down to figure out if the user is allowed to access C or not. Yep, personally I reckon EVRYTHING should behave like restrictedTraverse, but as I said, that appears to just be me... Well, you must be the only one who never had a need for security restrictions elsewhere than at the root of the site. Florent -- Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France) CTO, Director of RD +33 1 40 33 71 59 http://nuxeo.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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: [Zope-Checkins] SVN: Zope/trunk/ - Applied patch for
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:34:10AM -0500, Tim Peters wrote: [Sidnei da Silva] Humm... we are trying to push a Zope 2.8 beta out, do you have or know of plans to use ZODB 3.4 with Zope 2.8? Yes. Jim needs to fix ZClasses for 2.8 too. ZODB 3.4 requires some Zope(3) features, like zope.interfaces and zope.testing. Jim is adding those on his ZClasses branch. When the ZClasses work is merged (but not before), it becomes possible to move to ZODB 3.4. Zope3 already uses ZODB trunk (3.4 development). We can't afford to maintain a separate ZODB just for Zope 2.8, so view moving to ZODB 3.4 as a requirement for Zope 2.8. Oh, also please note that we're merging zope.interfaces and zope.testing into Zope 2.8 already. So once we merge that branch (today, we expect), ZODB 3.4 could be merged in. But I'm worried that there are other factors involved with ZODB 3.4 that will hold up release even further. For instance, there is no ZODB 3.4 release yet; how much work would that entail? 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] Clarification re: Zope X3.1, 2.8
Hi all, There have been a number of threads going on today re: Zope X3.1 feature freeze and the 2.8 effort. I'd like to clarify some decisions re: Zope 2.8 Jim is the product mgr for Zope 3 and I'm it for Zope 2, so hopefully this can be considered authoritative and end part of this thread ;) - Zope 2.8 will include X3.0 (not X3.1) - The Z3 developers will have *no* extra burden or responsibility to support X3.0 beyond what they would normally do in the normal course of maintaining it for Z3-only applications. In other words, it is not the responsibility of Z3 devs to make sure Z2 tests pass, etc. - It *will be* the responsibility of the Zope 2 devs to make sure Z2 works with the version of Z3 bundled at the time. - In the next few days at most, after a few loose ends are wrapped up, we'll ask Andreas to make a 2.8 beta 1 release. While Jim still has a few things to do, people will be able to start using the beta for real work. - Anyone who cant wait for that can use the five-integration branch in SVN - As a community, we will work out how best to adapt the Zope 2 release process and schedule to that of Zope 3 going forward. We don't need to decide this immediately to continue to make progress on 2.8. I suggest an IRC meeting sometime soon to draft a proposal. Brian Lloyd[EMAIL PROTECTED] V.P. Engineering 540.361.1716 Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com ___ 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] Zope 2.8 + Five post-sprint status
Hey everybody, We're wrapping up here at a very pleasant and productive Zope 2/3/Five sprint here in Paris. We've accomplished quite a lot, and we'll let you hear what this is in more detail soon. We've spent a lot of time with Zope 2.8, integrating Zope X3.0 and Five into it. Our work is on two branches: The five-integration branch: svn://svn.zope.org/repos/main/Zope/branches/five-integration The trunk, which has synchups with Zope 2.7 fixes: svn://svn.zope.org/repos/main/Zope/trunk The Five integration branch contains Five, and a version of Zope X3.0 made for integration with Zope 2.8 (as a svn:external). We hope that this branch can be merged into mainline Zope 2.x trunk soon. I hereby want to thank everybody here at the sprint who worked so hard on this. It's really your work, guys, I just kept the todo list. :) 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 )
Re: [Zope-dev] Clarification re: Zope X3.1, 2.8
--On Freitag, 18. März 2005 11:22 Uhr -0500 Brian Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - In the next few days at most, after a few loose ends are wrapped up, we'll ask Andreas to make a 2.8 beta 1 release. While Jim still has a few things to do, people will be able to start using the beta for real work. I think that the following outstanding to-dos for Zope 2.8 should be completed before a beta release: - Renable C permission roles by implementing recent Python changes in C, brining the Python and C implementations back in sync. See lib/python/AccessControl/PermissionRole.py. - Add cyclic-garbage collection support to C extension classes, especially to acquisition wrappers. - Change acquisition wrappers to implement the descr get slot directly, thus speeding the use of the slot. - Renable C Zope security policy by implementing recent Python changes in C, brining the Python and C implementations back in sync. See lib/python/AccessControl/ZopeSecurityPolicy.py. Andreas pgpripUiYaasx.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 )
Re: [Zope-dev] Clarification re: Zope X3.1, 2.8
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 11:22:26AM -0500, Brian Lloyd wrote: [snip] - Zope 2.8 will include X3.0 (not X3.1) - The Z3 developers will have *no* extra burden or responsibility to support X3.0 beyond what they would normally do in the normal course of maintaining it for Z3-only applications. In other words, it is not the responsibility of Z3 devs to make sure Z2 tests pass, etc. - It *will be* the responsibility of the Zope 2 devs to make sure Z2 works with the version of Z3 bundled at the time. - In the next few days at most, after a few loose ends are wrapped up, we'll ask Andreas to make a 2.8 beta 1 release. While Jim still has a few things to do, people will be able to start using the beta for real work. - Anyone who cant wait for that can use the five-integration branch in SVN Which is now as ready as we'll make it at this sprint. There are still a few loose ends (in particular we may want to synch up a few packages like zconfig and restructured text if it isn't too difficult), though those ends are not strictly necessary for Five support. - As a community, we will work out how best to adapt the Zope 2 release process and schedule to that of Zope 3 going forward. We don't need to decide this immediately to continue to make progress on 2.8. I suggest an IRC meeting sometime soon to draft a proposal. Thanks on behalf of the sprinters here working on this! I hope we can all gather in the IRC meeting. 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 )
Re: [Zope-dev] Clarification re: Zope X3.1, 2.8
Brian Lloyd wrote: Hi all, There have been a number of threads going on today re: Zope X3.1 feature freeze and the 2.8 effort. I'd like to clarify some decisions re: Zope 2.8 Very much excellent! This, Jims announcement of the April 2 feature freeze datem and Stephans statement that he was mostly finished wih thhis X3. work makes this a day of many promising emails. ;) I was a bit surprised at seeing a feature freeze I had assumed had happened being announced, but after pondering it I realize it's fine. And with Pycon coming up, April 2 is probably a good date as well. ___ 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] Clarification re: Zope X3.1, 2.8
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 05:42:05PM +0100, Andreas Jung wrote: --On Freitag, 18. M?rz 2005 11:22 Uhr -0500 Brian Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - In the next few days at most, after a few loose ends are wrapped up, we'll ask Andreas to make a 2.8 beta 1 release. While Jim still has a few things to do, people will be able to start using the beta for real work. I think that the following outstanding to-dos for Zope 2.8 should be completed before a beta release: [snip todos] I understand that Jim won't have time to do these until mid-april. Is it absolutely impossible to ship a beta which is 'non optimized' or something? I mean, we got Silva and Plone running on Zope 2.8.. Do some of these have something to do with a change to Python 2.4, by the way? It's a bit unclear to me what version of Python this release is targetting. 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 )
Re: [Zope-dev] Clarification re: Zope X3.1, 2.8
--On Freitag, 18. März 2005 18:03 Uhr +0100 Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 05:42:05PM +0100, Andreas Jung wrote: --On Freitag, 18. M?rz 2005 11:22 Uhr -0500 Brian Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - In the next few days at most, after a few loose ends are wrapped up, we'll ask Andreas to make a 2.8 beta 1 release. While Jim still has a few things to do, people will be able to start using the beta for real work. I think that the following outstanding to-dos for Zope 2.8 should be completed before a beta release: [snip todos] I understand that Jim won't have time to do these until mid-april. Is it absolutely impossible to ship a beta which is 'non optimized' or something? I mean, we got Silva and Plone running on Zope 2.8.. A beta release should be feature-complete means it should contain everything that will be part of the final release. A beta should not development release where things are subject to change in some way. We can do an alpha 2 of course with everything you want but as long as there is longer list of outstanding issues I won't consider the current SVN trunk as beta quality. Andreas pgpJjW0QpGB5V.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 )
Re: [Zope-dev] Clarification re: Zope X3.1, 2.8
Martijn Faassen wrote: ... Do some of these have something to do with a change to Python 2.4, by the way? No. It's a bit unclear to me what version of Python this release is targetting. 2.3 Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.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] Clarification re: Zope X3.1, 2.8
Andreas Jung wrote: --On Freitag, 18. März 2005 18:03 Uhr +0100 Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 05:42:05PM +0100, Andreas Jung wrote: --On Freitag, 18. M?rz 2005 11:22 Uhr -0500 Brian Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - In the next few days at most, after a few loose ends are wrapped up, we'll ask Andreas to make a 2.8 beta 1 release. While Jim still has a few things to do, people will be able to start using the beta for real work. I think that the following outstanding to-dos for Zope 2.8 should be completed before a beta release: [snip todos] I understand that Jim won't have time to do these until mid-april. Is it absolutely impossible to ship a beta which is 'non optimized' or something? I mean, we got Silva and Plone running on Zope 2.8.. A beta release should be feature-complete means it should contain everything that will be part of the final release. A beta should not development release where things are subject to change in some way. We can do an alpha 2 of course with everything you want but as long as there is longer list of outstanding issues I won't consider the current SVN trunk as beta quality. I don't think we have new features on the to do list. These are all bug fixes or optimizations. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.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: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Clarification re: Zope X3.1, 2.8
[Martijn Faassen] ... Do some of these have something to do with a change to Python 2.4, by the way? [Jim Fulton] No. If you're using the Python 2.4 line, some of the security changes triggered a Python bug that will be fixed in 2.4.1 (which is currently in release candidate 2 status). It's a bit unclear to me what version of Python this release is targetting. 2.3 There are relevant (but different) Python bugs in 2.3 too. I'd say = 2.3.4 is the requirement now. I only test with 2.3.5. ___ 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] Clarification re: Zope X3.1, 2.8
- The Z3 developers will have *no* extra burden or responsibility to support X3.0 beyond what they would normally do in the normal course of maintaining it for Z3-only applications. In other words, it is not the responsibility of Z3 devs to make sure Z2 tests pass, etc. - It *will be* the responsibility of the Zope 2 devs to make sure Z2 works with the version of Z3 bundled at the time. I assume these caveats are spelled out here because Z3 developers don't want to slow down Z3 development to test/maintain Z2 compatibility. I know a lot about Z2 code, but I know very little about Z3 code. I'd like that to change, but it's likely that I'll just not have the bandwidth to make sure Z3-inside-Z2 works. If that just means I can't use Z3 features but nothing else breaks, it's probably fine, but if Z3 integration actively breaks Z2, it's likely I'll just need for some extended period of time to continue to use and maintain 2.7. It'd be great if active Z3 developers could actually help make new releases of Z2 once Five is integrated but the above makes it sound like a we'll throw it over the wall and you make it work sort of thing. If it's the latter, maybe as devil's advocate, I need to ask what the point is here? It appears there is an assumption that merging Z2 and Z3 code within Z2 itself is an unmitigated good thing, but IMHO, each is complicated enough in their own right that I'd personally prefer to be dealing with one or the other at any given time and not both. This isn't exactly idle whining either, I need to do this when I maintain Z4I code, and it's definitely not a walk in the park; it's moderately difficult to do and also difficult find people who have the skills to help too. Does anyone else share this skepticism or am I about to get shouted down? ;-) - C ___ 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] Clarification re: Zope X3.1, 2.8
- It *will be* the responsibility of the Zope 2 devs to make sure Z2 works with the version of Z3 bundled at the time. snip It'd be great if active Z3 developers could actually help make new releases of Z2 once Five is integrated but the above makes it sound like a we'll throw it over the wall and you make it work sort of thing. If it's the latter, maybe as devil's advocate, I need to ask what the point is here? It came across the same way for me. Not only we Z3 people will go along on our merry way, let the Z2 people deal with the problems, it's also about bundling a version of Z3 that is apparently not within the Z3 developers' path anymore (at least from the description). I didn't answer until I read Chris' post because I work on CMF when I work on Zope, so I don't do much as far as checkins to Zope goes. He says what I only thought, and I had the same thing in the back of my mind: If this becomes an obstacle I just won't touch it anymore. Yes, I will get into Z3 at some point myself, but preferably at a time of my own choosing... It appears there is an assumption that merging Z2 and Z3 code within Z2 itself is an unmitigated good thing, but IMHO, each is complicated enough in their own right that I'd personally prefer to be dealing with one or the other at any given time and not both. This isn't exactly idle whining either, I need to do this when I maintain Z4I code, and it's definitely not a walk in the park; it's moderately difficult to do and also difficult find people who have the skills to help too. Right on. Now, I have no idea how similar or different the Z3-Z2 marriage in 2.8 is to that unholy alliance that is used for Z4I, but working on it for Z4I is an exercise in frustration every time I had to do it. 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: Clarification re: Zope X3.1, 2.8
Chris wrote: I assume these caveats are spelled out here because Z3 developers don't want to slow down Z3 development to test/maintain Z2 compatibility. I know a lot about Z2 code, but I know very little about Z3 code. I'd like that to change, but it's likely that I'll just not have the bandwidth to make sure Z3-inside-Z2 works. If that just means I can't use Z3 features but nothing else breaks, it's probably fine, but if Z3 integration actively breaks Z2, it's likely I'll just need for some extended period of time to continue to use and maintain 2.7. It'd be great if active Z3 developers could actually help make new releases of Z2 once Five is integrated but the above makes it sound like a we'll throw it over the wall and you make it work sort of thing. If it's the latter, maybe as devil's advocate, I need to ask what the point is here? It appears there is an assumption that merging Z2 and Z3 code within Z2 itself is an unmitigated good thing, but IMHO, each is complicated enough in their own right that I'd personally prefer to be dealing with one or the other at any given time and not both. This isn't exactly idle whining either, I need to do this when I maintain Z4I code, and it's definitely not a walk in the park; it's moderately difficult to do and also difficult find people who have the skills to help too. Does anyone else share this skepticism or am I about to get shouted down? ;-) - C A lot of time was spent talking about these (legitimate) concerns - unfortunately it will probably take a little time to distill all of that communication to the community. But let me take a shot ;) There are several different groups, with different goals and concerns, who are involved here: A: Z2 developers that don't care right now about Z3 B: Z2 developers that care about Z3, but can't effectively use anything Z3 related right now because it is not practical or possible to switch wholesale and there is no bridge to Z3 that doesn't require throwing away existing investments in Z2 C: Z3 developers that don't care about Z2 anymore, often because they dont have existing investments in Z2 There are a significant and growing number of people in group B. At the paris sprint, we were looking for a way to: - Allow folks in group B to start taking advantage of (and developing an interest in and contributing to!) Zope 3 technologies - Make sure that group A would not be 'forced' to do anything they don't want to do - Make sure that group C would not be 'forced' to do anything they don't want to do I feel that the approach of integrating Five into Zope officially does a pretty good job of meeting those goals. We added the Five product and a snapshot of Zope X3.0 into the core so that people could have a reliable baseline 'out of the box'. That integration touched almost nothing in the Z2 code (one or two things that were previously done as monkey patches were un-monkeyed, but that's about it). The Z3 code (and the Five code) just sits there unused unless you choose to use it, so Zope3 code breaking Z2 apps is not really a concern. But is there and available, so people can begin to plot their own migration paths based on their own situations. Like other areas of Z2 (and Z3, for that matter), contributors tend to develop areas of expertise. A new area of expertise for Z2 going forward will be the Five/Z3 integration, and there will be a set of devs who will likely focus on that aspect. I don't expect that the fact that Five and Z3 integration exists will make life any harder for someone who focuses on purely Z2 aspects of the core anytime soon. So the short answer is, we tried really hard to make sure to take an approach where z3 integration would not actively break zope2 in any way or force people into any particular direction. I *do* expect these (good) questions to recur in future Z2 releases, as integration and ability to use Z3 technologies increases, but we'll have plenty of time to work those out. For now, I think it is a huge win to make some Z3 avenues available to people who want to use them, without forcing everyone to drink the kool-aid at once ;) Brian Lloyd[EMAIL PROTECTED] V.P. Engineering 540.361.1716 Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com ___ 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: Clarification re: Zope X3.1, 2.8
On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 13:45, Brian Lloyd wrote: A lot of time was spent talking about these (legitimate) concerns - unfortunately it will probably take a little time to distill all of that communication to the community. But let me take a shot ;) There are several different groups, with different goals and concerns, who are involved here: A: Z2 developers that don't care right now about Z3 B: Z2 developers that care about Z3, but can't effectively use anything Z3 related right now because it is not practical or possible to switch wholesale and there is no bridge to Z3 that doesn't require throwing away existing investments in Z2 C: Z3 developers that don't care about Z2 anymore, often because they dont have existing investments in Z2 There are a significant and growing number of people in group B. Yup, that makes sense. Are these assumed to also be the folks who will try to make sure that new Z3 releases make it in to Z2 via Five? I guess what I'm driving at is that I'd hate to eventually have a very old version of Z3 sitting inside of Zope 2 due to insufficient bandwidth on the part of those developers to keep up with Z3 releases. While it wouldn't be the end of the world or anything, I suspect some dependencies will inevitably creep into the Zope 2 core on Zope 3 packages, and maintaining an older codebase can be pretty painful. The testing requirements for making sure that changes that Z2 coders make to Z3 work both in Z2 and Z3 is a pretty high bar, just as vice versa. In the past, I've seen efforts like this turn into an effective fork as a result. At the paris sprint, we were looking for a way to: - Allow folks in group B to start taking advantage of (and developing an interest in and contributing to!) Zope 3 technologies - Make sure that group A would not be 'forced' to do anything they don't want to do - Make sure that group C would not be 'forced' to do anything they don't want to do I feel that the approach of integrating Five into Zope officially does a pretty good job of meeting those goals. We added the Five product and a snapshot of Zope X3.0 into the core so that people could have a reliable baseline 'out of the box'. That integration touched almost nothing in the Z2 code (one or two things that were previously done as monkey patches were un-monkeyed, but that's about it). The Z3 code (and the Five code) just sits there unused unless you choose to use it, so Zope3 code breaking Z2 apps is not really a concern. That's good to know. But is there and available, so people can begin to plot their own migration paths based on their own situations. Please correct me if I'm wrong here but I get the sense that Five is less of a migration path from Z2 to Z3 than a way to integrate Z3 technologies (like views and adapters) into Z2 right now. Obviously allowing Z2 developers to use these things will give them a some needed familiarity with Z3 if they decide to switch but the migration path to straight Z3 will always be more or less a rewrite, no? Like other areas of Z2 (and Z3, for that matter), contributors tend to develop areas of expertise. A new area of expertise for Z2 going forward will be the Five/Z3 integration, and there will be a set of devs who will likely focus on that aspect. I don't expect that the fact that Five and Z3 integration exists will make life any harder for someone who focuses on purely Z2 aspects of the core anytime soon. So the short answer is, we tried really hard to make sure to take an approach where z3 integration would not actively break zope2 in any way or force people into any particular direction. Excellent, that's what I was hoping. I *do* expect these (good) questions to recur in future Z2 releases, as integration and ability to use Z3 technologies increases, but we'll have plenty of time to work those out. For now, I think it is a huge win to make some Z3 avenues available to people who want to use them, without forcing everyone to drink the kool-aid at once ;) Yup... I'm still a bit skeptical but if other folks are committed to maintenance I'd be less so. - C ___ 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] RE: Clarification re: Zope X3.1, 2.8
There are a significant and growing number of people in group B. Yup, that makes sense. Are these assumed to also be the folks who will try to make sure that new Z3 releases make it in to Z2 via Five? I guess what I'm driving at is that I'd hate to eventually have a very old version of Z3 sitting inside of Zope 2 due to insufficient bandwidth on the part of those developers to keep up with Z3 releases. While it wouldn't be the end of the world or anything, I suspect some dependencies will inevitably creep into the Zope 2 core on Zope 3 packages, and maintaining an older codebase can be pretty painful. The testing requirements for making sure that changes that Z2 coders make to Z3 work both in Z2 and Z3 is a pretty high bar, just as vice versa. In the past, I've seen efforts like this turn into an effective fork as a result. It won't turn into a fork. Right now there is a lot of discussion going on about the 'right' way to manage Z3 releases -- we'll need to decide on a Z2 release policy that takes that into account. I think the goal for Z2 will be to include the latest stable z3 possible. Some have suggested synchronizing the releases - that may be the way to go if it isnt impractical from an operational point of view. In any case, the goal is to gradually (but consistently!) make more and more Z3 functionality available to Z2 developers in future Z2 releases, based on the most stable Z3 baseline possible. Please correct me if I'm wrong here but I get the sense that Five is less of a migration path from Z2 to Z3 than a way to integrate Z3 technologies (like views and adapters) into Z2 right now. Obviously allowing Z2 developers to use these things will give them a some needed familiarity with Z3 if they decide to switch but the migration path to straight Z3 will always be more or less a rewrite, no? It is definitely a migration path. Lets say you have an application based on Z3 with 10 (logical) components. You couldn't feasibly rewrite all of it at once to use Z3. As of 2.8, you'll be able to add functionality to your application using adapters, views, etc. So for V.Next of your app, maybe you are able to port 2 existing components and add 1 new one. For V.Next.Next, you add 2 more and port 2 more. At some point, it *will* be feasible to jump to Z3 with a minmal effort, since you've been able to port your application to components over time. I *do* expect these (good) questions to recur in future Z2 releases, as integration and ability to use Z3 technologies increases, but we'll have plenty of time to work those out. For now, I think it is a huge win to make some Z3 avenues available to people who want to use them, without forcing everyone to drink the kool-aid at once ;) Yup... I'm still a bit skeptical but if other folks are committed to maintenance I'd be less so. Skepticism is healthy, but if it's any consolation, almost everyone involved in this effort has very real 'skin in the game' in terms of existing Zope2 investments. I think that will do a great deal to ensure that the decisions made for future 2.x work are sane and take real-world concerns into account. Brian Lloyd[EMAIL PROTECTED] V.P. Engineering 540.361.1716 Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com ___ 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: Overriding Products
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:49:01 +0100, Martijn Jacobs wrote: Hello guys. I have a question regarding product importing in zope 2.7.x, as since zope 2.7 this part is way more flexible then it was before. I'd like to accomplish the next situation : - A Zope base installation has Product X installed in /lib/python/Products which I want to change or develop further - x instances of Zope use the produtc from this base install. - At one instance I want to test and develop, without breaking the other instances. - My approach would be one of the following: 1) Do the dev and test on a different (non-production) machine. 2) Install a second copy of zope for that dev/test instance. Both of these will avoid any interactions between your production setup and your dev/test work. HTH, -D -- Microsoft has argued that open source is bad for business, but you have to ask, Whose business? Theirs, or yours? --Tim O'Reilly www: http://dman13.dyndns.org/~dman/jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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: [Zope-Checkins] SVN: Zope/trunk/ - Applied patch for
[Martijn Faassen] Oh, also please note that we're merging zope.interfaces and zope.testing into Zope 2.8 already. So once we merge that branch (today, we expect), AFAICT, that didn't land today, at least not on the trunk. ZODB 3.4 could be merged in. But I'm worried that there are other factors involved with ZODB 3.4 that will hold up release even further. Even further than what? If you want to maintain ZODB, feel free to release 2.8 with the random snapshot that's there now wink. Otherwise-- and 3.3.1 or 3.4 --it needs another ZODB first. For instance, there is no ZODB 3.4 release yet; Neither a 3.3.1. how much work would that entail? 2-3 days (for both 3.3.1 and a 3.4), but I'm 7 days solid at PyCon starting tomorrow morning so it won't be the coming week. The week after could work; I don't yet know what priority my management attaches to this project relative to other projects on my plate. ___ 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] Cookie problem with mySqlUserFolder
Title: Cookie problem with mySqlUserFolder Hello everyone: I am facing the problem regarding cookie. One of our website uses mySqlUserFolder. Problem is if user logs on one computer, and if he/she comes again on same computer, computer remembers him/her. That is good as it is what we want. But if he/she goes on another computer and logs on and then if he/she come back to previous one, it looses it's reorganization though cookie is there. I checked what problem would be and found that each time logged in process on different computers generates a random value for cookie on that computer and also store same value in Tokens table on mysqlUserFolder database. So everytime only cookie from one computer matches the value with Tokens tables value. So other computer don't remember the previous login. ( Though I don't know this is the reason of my problem) What would be the solution to keep reorganization on all computers on which once user has been logged in? Any help will be appreciated. Thanks in advance! With Regards, Aruna Kathiriya Sr.Consultant, CIGNEX Technologies, Inc T: 408.327.9900 x 314 F: 408.273.6785 E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] U: www.cignex.com Implement IT Right ___ 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] Parrot
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Parrot 0.1.2 was released a couple of weeks ago. According to the release notes, there's now better python support, separated into dynaclasses. Unfortunately, I haven't really managed to keep up with the Parrot project, but I think it quite possibly represents the strategic future of Zope. An obvious benefit is the genuine concurrency it offers over GIL on SMP hardware. Anyone running an enterprise Zope or Plone installation would desire to take advantage of this. I know a year or so ago, someone received a pie in the face at a conference because Parrot still wasn't as fast as the native Python interpreter, but maybe this too has changed with this release. I'm very interested to know if anyone is investigating Parrot. Alan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCO4vpCfroLk4EZpkRAsVVAKCQBlffkkhd86BX/KxwJcYSXPx5pwCfdiU8 Ybnu4zF97xG8SSYxYUY64I8= =KzS4 -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 )
