Re: [Zope-dev] SiteRoot and VHM
Am Donnerstag, den 07.04.2005, 01:45 +0200 schrieb Florent Guillaume: > After spending an hour helping someone debug a site that had an hidden > SiteRoot somewhere that prevented a virtual host monster from working, > it was suggested to me that if there's a virtual host monster, it > should take precedence (and deactivates) any further SiteRoot. I think > it's a good idea. Better yet, it should just display a warning (and change its icon/title or so) to display the problem and let the user decide the action to take. Regards Tino ___ 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] SiteRoot and VHM
On Apr 7, 2005, at 9:08, Tino Wildenhain wrote: Am Donnerstag, den 07.04.2005, 01:45 +0200 schrieb Florent Guillaume: After spending an hour helping someone debug a site that had an hidden SiteRoot somewhere that prevented a virtual host monster from working, it was suggested to me that if there's a virtual host monster, it should take precedence (and deactivates) any further SiteRoot. I think it's a good idea. Better yet, it should just display a warning (and change its icon/title or so) to display the problem and let the user decide the action to take. That's an excellent idea, and one that I would +1 on all branches ;) 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: brain.getObject and traversal
Andreas Jung wrote: Chris wants to backport it to 2.7 x; I'm opposed. Your call. If it does not change the default behaviour we have in 2.7.5... why not... Cool, thanks, I'll look at merging for 2.7.6 :-) cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ 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] I want Zope 2.9 to use Zope 3's security architecture.
Richard Jones wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 02:49 am, Jim Fulton wrote: Paul Winkler wrote: i.e. will I still write: security.declareProtected(SomePermission, 'foo') def foo(self): ... That will work, and I don't see a need to deprecate it. Eventually, though, I expect products to migrate to ZCML-based security declarations. Is this a general trend for Zope 2? I'd rather see Zope 2 kinda avoid ZCML if possible. It's just one of those personal preference things, I suppose, but I know I'm not the only one who isn't that enamored of the ZCML approach. I actually like having the declarations all in the python code like it is in Zope 2. As I said, I don't see a need to deprecate the Zope 2 style in this case. I think that most people who've tried it find they prefer having the security declarations separate. This is more compelling for Zope 3 code, which tends to have less Zope-isms to begin with, I'd like to see the declarative style that Zope 2 move to using decorators. I was sitting in a presentation at PyCon talking about MetaClasses, and I finally *got* them. I realised that the security declarations in Zope 2 are a perfect fit for metaclasses and decorators. If only I had the time to actually implement this dream ;) I don't see any use for metaclasses in making security declarations. For me, metaclasses (like proxies) are deep and powerful magic that should only be used when they are realy needed. Note that this all comes from the perspective of someone whose only exposure to Zope 3 has been through two sprints. I've not actually tried to develop any sort of application using it. My day job is very firmly fixed in Zope 2, and isn't likely to change for a long time. So I'm definitely speaking from ignorance of real-world application development in Zope 3. Fair enough. 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 )
[Zope-dev] [Zope 2.8] Inclusion of ExtendedPathIndex?
I wonder if it is of public interest to include the ExtendedPathIndex from Plone in Zope 2.8. It offers some the nice extension to limit the depth of the search and improves building navigation-trees or similar structures. Opinions? Andreas pgp8nmyWX3hEd.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: [Zope 2.8] Inclusion of ExtendedPathIndex?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Andreas Jung wrote: > I wonder if it is of public interest to include the ExtendedPathIndex > from Plone in Zope 2.8. > It offers some the nice extension to limit the depth of the search and > improves building navigation-trees > or similar structures. Opinions? I doubt many folks on this list know the code that well. Are you thinking to lift the features you mention, making them part of the regular PathIndex? Also, what is the IP status of the code? Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver[EMAIL PROTECTED] Zope Corporation "Zope Dealers" http://www.zope.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCVSDhGqWXf00rNCgRAklQAJ0WH6k23gjaEroC7MoTC1pN/kSaFQCeJ9vg GaRdPAEOYOa0D0eac17VmoQ= =ulEx -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: SiteRoot and VHM
-1 for removing it. I think it's a cool feature :-) I like the ability to use a 'blank' SiteRoot (one with a blank base and path) in conjunction with an access rule to set request variables when I access my site in through a particular point (eg set the plone_skin variable when I access my site through /admin or force a particular language when I access my site through /language-name). This is in addition to using VHM and apache rewrite rules in the standard way. I guess this could be done with more complicated rewrite rules but then I become dependent on accessing the site trough apache and lose some flexibility. Laurence Florent Guillaume wrote: After spending an hour helping someone debug a site that had an hidden SiteRoot somewhere that prevented a virtual host monster from working, it was suggested to me that if there's a virtual host monster, it should take precedence (and deactivates) any further SiteRoot. I think it's a good idea. Should I create a patch ? Florent ___ 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] [Zope 2.8] Inclusion of ExtendedPathIndex?
Andreas Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I wonder if it is of public interest to include the ExtendedPathIndex from > Plone in Zope 2.8. > It offers some the nice extension to limit the depth of the search and > improves building navigation-trees or similar structures. Opinions? +1 if it's a separate new index (don't change the existing PathIndex). Does it provide a way of cataloging the ordering of children? Otherwise I don't see how you can build navigation tree using it (unless you don't care about ordering of course). Florent -- Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France) CTO, Director of R&D +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 )
Re: [Zope-dev] I want Zope 2.9 to use Zope 3's security architecture.
Richard Jones wrote: [snip] Is this a general trend for Zope 2? I'd rather see Zope 2 kinda avoid ZCML if possible. The Five integration philosophy at least, is that it makes use of ZCML *possible* in Zope 2, but not at all mandatory. Five tries to mess with the innards of Zope 2 as much as possible, because it's complicated enough to add Zope 3 to Zope 2 already; we don't want to worry about changing Zope 2 (or Zope 3). Zope 2.9 has traditionally been seen as a version of Zope 2 where the innards *will* change to integrate deeper into Zope 3. Five's philosophy makes it impossible to do certain kinds of Zope 3 integration with Zope 2, such as security in particular. Though in fact I'm surprised how much *is* already possible given the limitations Five has; I think that's an interesting finding. Anyway, you might want to give Five a spin one day. Perhaps you'll change your mind about ZCML. Five introduces Zope 3 concepts more gradually to the Zope 2 hacker than Zope 3 itself, so it may be less overwhelming; Zope 3 certainly sometimes tends to overwhelm me, still. 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] [Zope 2.8] Inclusion of ExtendedPathIndex?
Andreas Jung wrote: I wonder if it is of public interest to include the ExtendedPathIndex from Plone in Zope 2.8. It offers some the nice extension to limit the depth of the search and improves building navigation-trees or similar structures. Opinions? While the feature sounds cool, I tend to be a bit worried about delaying the Zope 2.8 release with this, though of course I shouldn't shout so loudly as we just added in Five. Then again, we had significant numbers of people working on that for the biggest part of a week... 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] Re: [Zope 2.8] Inclusion of ExtendedPathIndex?
--On Donnerstag, 7. April 2005 8:00 Uhr -0400 Tres Seaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I doubt many folks on this list know the code that well. Are you thinking to lift the features you mention, making them part of the regular PathIndex? Also, what is the IP status of the code? It extends the PathIndex and has a different behaviour. So making the functionality part of the existing PathIndex would break the exisiting behaviour therefore it should be included as second path index. The license is BSD or ZPL but not GPL :-) Andreas pgppabT3AU8Sz.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] [Zope 2.8] Inclusion of ExtendedPathIndex?
--On Donnerstag, 7. April 2005 14:49 Uhr +0200 Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Andreas Jung wrote: I wonder if it is of public interest to include the ExtendedPathIndex from Plone in Zope 2.8. It offers some the nice extension to limit the depth of the search and improves building navigation-trees or similar structures. Opinions? While the feature sounds cool, I tend to be a bit worried about delaying the Zope 2.8 release with this, Why delaying? -aj pgphB0rDpD1Y8.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] To ZCML or not ;-)
Richard Jones wrote: Is this a general trend for Zope 2? I'd rather see Zope 2 kinda avoid ZCML if possible. It's just one of those personal preference things, I suppose, but I know I'm not the only one who isn't that enamored of the ZCML approach. I actually like having the declarations all in the python code like it is in Zope 2. Am I right in thinking that the XML part of ZCML is layered over python functionality underneath? If so, how hard would it be to provide an alternative to the baroque XML? - the bit of ZCML I don't like ;-) cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ 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] To ZCML or not ;-)
Chris Withers wrote: Richard Jones wrote: Is this a general trend for Zope 2? I'd rather see Zope 2 kinda avoid ZCML if possible. It's just one of those personal preference things, I suppose, but I know I'm not the only one who isn't that enamored of the ZCML approach. I actually like having the declarations all in the python code like it is in Zope 2. Am I right in thinking that the XML part of ZCML is layered over python functionality underneath? If so, how hard would it be to provide an alternative to the baroque XML? - the bit of ZCML I don't like ;-) It's is theoretically possible, but not really worth the effort. I'll note that ZCML has gotten progressively simpler over the years. It continues to get simpler. For example, now that we we can say more about adapters in Python, a typical adapter registration looks like: Also, for various reasons, ZCML took on implementation capabilities. We're looking at ways to move that implementation capability back into Python, where it belongs, which will make page definition easier. I expect that page definitions in the future will look more like: 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] Re: SiteRoot and VHM
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 12:55:09PM +0100, Laurence Rowe wrote: > -1 for removing it. I think it's a cool feature :-) > > I like the ability to use a 'blank' SiteRoot (one with a blank base and > path) in conjunction with an access rule to set request variables when I > access my site in through a particular point (eg set the plone_skin > variable when I access my site through /admin or force a particular > language when I access my site through /language-name). This is in > addition to using VHM and apache rewrite rules in the standard way. I'm curious, what does the SiteRoot buy you over just doing all that in an access rule? -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.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 )
Re: [Zope-dev] [Zope 2.8] Inclusion of ExtendedPathIndex?
Andreas Jung wrote: --On Donnerstag, 7. April 2005 14:49 Uhr +0200 Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Andreas Jung wrote: I wonder if it is of public interest to include the ExtendedPathIndex from Plone in Zope 2.8. It offers some the nice extension to limit the depth of the search and improves building navigation-trees or similar structures. Opinions? While the feature sounds cool, I tend to be a bit worried about delaying the Zope 2.8 release with this, Why delaying? Adding any features could delay the release, right? Perhaps this one is really easy so it won't introduce a large risk of delay; I can't evaluate that. 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] [Zope 2.8] Inclusion of ExtendedPathIndex?
--On Donnerstag, 7. April 2005 20:15 Uhr +0200 Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Andreas Jung wrote: --On Donnerstag, 7. April 2005 14:49 Uhr +0200 Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Andreas Jung wrote: I wonder if it is of public interest to include the ExtendedPathIndex from Plone in Zope 2.8. It offers some the nice extension to limit the depth of the search and improves building navigation-trees or similar structures. Opinions? While the feature sounds cool, I tend to be a bit worried about delaying the Zope 2.8 release with this, Why delaying? Adding any features could delay the release, right? Perhaps this one is really easy so it won't introduce a large risk of delay; I can't evaluate that. Don't worry...everything's under control :-) Except the 2.8.a2 release almost all my releases where on the track. Andreas pgpRhMOXupP7U.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: SiteRoot and VHM
Paul Winkler wrote: On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 12:55:09PM +0100, Laurence Rowe wrote: -1 for removing it. I think it's a cool feature :-) I like the ability to use a 'blank' SiteRoot (one with a blank base and path) in conjunction with an access rule to set request variables when I access my site in through a particular point (eg set the plone_skin variable when I access my site through /admin or force a particular language when I access my site through /language-name). This is in addition to using VHM and apache rewrite rules in the standard way. I'm curious, what does the SiteRoot buy you over just doing all that in an access rule? Having just read up on REQUEST.setServerURL(SiteRootBASE) and REQUEST.setVirtualRoot(SiteRootPATH). I was about to say "nothing at all - I'm just being ignorant", but it looks like the answer is actually 'flexibility'. From http://www.zope.org/Members/4am/SiteAccess2/vhosting """ If a SiteRooted folder is ever accessed through URLs with a base or path that does not get rewritten to match the Base and Path of the SiteRoot, you should make the SiteRoot's Base and Path blank and dynamically create SiteRootPATH/SiteRootBASE variables. For example, if you made a 'Zope' global-access prefix as described above, then the 'else' part should contain something like . """ Without the blank site root you lose the flexibility of these methods working when the site is not being virtual hosted, which is quite handy while developing. Laurence ___ 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] To ZCML or not ;-)
Richard Jones wrote: > Is this a general trend for Zope 2? I'd rather see Zope 2 kinda avoid ZCML if > possible. It's just one of those personal preference things, I suppose, but I > know I'm not the only one who isn't that enamored of the ZCML approach. ZCML started out for me (and as an experinced zope2 programmer I guess the experience may not be that unusual) as "ooh, my, lots to learn, why is it that complex"? Then it becames "oh, it's a consistent way of doing all those thinks that weren't very pythonic, like defining page templates", and then finally I grasped it with "ah, it's really the best parts of aspect orientation; you make all these separate modules, and you tie them together with ZCML!" Like XML or not, the approach of moving this type of meta-information to ZCML rocks. You know the feeling when a third party product has the wrong permission or no permission at all on something? What are you gonna do? Subclass: Lots of work. Patch: You gotta keep it updated. With ZCML, you override it. TADA! ___ 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 )
