Re: [Zope-dev] Enabling External Methods in skin folders
> On 17 November 2011 11:28, wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I have a bunch of External Methods I'd like to make available in a skin >> form, and which reload in the same way a page template would if it was >> modified and the server was in debug mode. > > External methods should not require restarts either. > >> What's the recommended product for enabling this now? > > A more robust approach may be to turn your external methods into > views, utility functions called from other views, portal_setup upgrade > steps, or whatever other purpose they serve. Yeah, OK. Well I have a bunch of old code which we're trying to reuse, in the simplest way possible. I figured out that since those External Methods were all living in one folder to start with, simply importing that folder into the Plone root will do, for now. :) -Morten ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Supporting interworking with repository branches on github
* Tres Seaver [2011-11-22 22:46]: > On 11/22/2011 12:13 PM, Laurence Rowe wrote: >> While the Zope Foundation deliberates on version control, I think >> it's likely that development will continue using Git and Github. > > Please don't try to jump the gun on the process here [...] > It is not appropriate for a small subset of the community to preempt > this kind of choid: "ask forgiveness rather than permission" is *not* > going to fly here, and trying to push harder only irritates folks you > might otherwise persuade. When reading the emails on this list about this topic, I get a strong feeling of "us vs. them". Is that really necessary? In that light, and trying to make visible the (positive!) aspects of the different opinions, allow me to ask: Tres, while I realize that you also rightly raise the formal issue that a vocal minority shouldn't surge ahead and create facts, do I understand you correctly that the main inherent[1] issue is a legal one, concerning proper handling of copyright etc.? Could someone explain what's at stake here, since at least I only have a vague feeling of "if something in that area goes wrong, it could be really bad"? Laurence, do I understand you correctly that your main concern is ease of use for development and that decentralized version control would be preferable to a centralized one? Do you feel unduly blocked by the need to resolve these (rather tricky) legal issues? Might a technical solution be of use until this is resolved (git can read/write svn, can't it)? Wolfgang [1] Sorry, my English is failing me. I'm looking for a word that means, as opposed to formal. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] zope-tests - FAILED: 1, OK: 45
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 03:15, Tres Seaver wrote: > The bootstrap failed, but without returning an error code, so the > buildout step blows up. It looks as though the root cause was a > transient network failure. I count a huge number of network failures these days, maybe time to create a PyPI Mirror for Buildbot (it's easy and use ~6Gb on the disk)? -- Sebastien Douche Twitter: @sdouche / G+: +sdouche ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] zope-tests - FAILED: 1, OK: 45
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > [1]FAILED winbot / ztk_dev py_270_win32 > https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-November/053050.html The bootstrap failed, but without returning an error code, so the buildout step blows up. It looks as though the root cause was a transient network failure. Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tsea...@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design"http://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk7MVy0ACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ7zfACeIOdf1Sq4XWQQxcSWDDAuRodu L+gAmwRrvcqMk7YRadMmZqv5io+28apv =AYpG -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] zope-tests - FAILED: 1, OK: 45
This is the summary for test reports received on the zope-tests list between 2011-11-21 00:00:00 UTC and 2011-11-22 00:00:00 UTC: See the footnotes for test reports of unsuccessful builds. An up-to date view of the builders is also available in our buildbot documentation: http://docs.zope.org/zopetoolkit/process/buildbots.html#the-nightly-builds Reports received Bluebream / Python2.5.5 64bit linux Bluebream / Python2.6.7 64bit linux Bluebream / Python2.7.2 64bit linux ZTK 1.0 / Python2.4.6 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.0 / Python2.5.5 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.0 / Python2.6.7 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.0dev / Python2.4.6 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.0dev / Python2.5.5 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.0dev / Python2.6.7 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.1 / Python2.5.5 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.1 / Python2.6.7 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.1 / Python2.7.2 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.1dev / Python2.5.5 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.1dev / Python2.6.7 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.1dev / Python2.7.2 Linux 64bit Zope 3.4 KGS / Python2.4.6 64bit linux Zope 3.4 KGS / Python2.5.5 64bit linux Zope 3.4 Known Good Set / py2.4-32bit-linux Zope 3.4 Known Good Set / py2.4-64bit-linux Zope 3.4 Known Good Set / py2.5-32bit-linux Zope 3.4 Known Good Set / py2.5-64bit-linux Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux Zope-2.12 Python-2.6.6 : Linux Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.6.6 : Linux Zope-2.13 Python-2.6.6 : Linux Zope-2.13-alltests Python-2.6.6 : Linux Zope-trunk Python-2.6.6 : Linux Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.6 : Linux winbot / ZODB_dev py_254_win32 winbot / ZODB_dev py_265_win32 winbot / ZODB_dev py_265_win64 winbot / ZODB_dev py_270_win32 winbot / ZODB_dev py_270_win64 winbot / ztk_10 py_254_win32 winbot / ztk_10 py_265_win32 winbot / ztk_10 py_265_win64 winbot / ztk_11 py_254_win32 winbot / ztk_11 py_265_win32 winbot / ztk_11 py_265_win64 winbot / ztk_11 py_270_win32 winbot / ztk_11 py_270_win64 winbot / ztk_dev py_265_win32 winbot / ztk_dev py_265_win64 [1]winbot / ztk_dev py_270_win32 winbot / ztk_dev py_270_win64 Non-OK results -- [1]FAILED winbot / ztk_dev py_270_win32 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-November/053050.html ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Supporting interworking with repository branches on github
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/22/2011 12:13 PM, Laurence Rowe wrote: > As you are already aware, at the SF Zope sprint we used Git and > github for our work. The work contained in > https://github.com/zopefoundation is by people who have already signed > the Zope Foundation contributor agreement. > > While the Zope Foundation deliberates on version control, I think > it's likely that development will continue using Git and Github. We > want to do this in a way that maintains flexibility for code committed > to Git to also be committed to svn.zope.org, so it would be helpful to > get a list of Name, Email, username for svn.zope.org committers to > facilitate the creation of an author mapping file. (Presumably this > information is in LDAP or similar.) > > We would of course be happy to hand administration rights of the > github organization to the Zope Foundation if it was felt to be > helpful in ensuring that contributions to that repository counted > under the committer agreement. Please don't try to jump the gun on the process here: you should be thinking of the existing Github branches as merely "scratchpads" for the sprint work, which should be merged into the canonical repository when they are ready. It is not appropriate for a small subset of the community to preempt this kind of choid: "ask forgiveness rather than permission" is *not* going to fly here, and trying to push harder only irritates folks you might otherwise persuade. Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tsea...@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design"http://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk7MGD8ACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ4XsgCgxMz1AtXcWXrv4EFnPxzhk9a4 qfQAn1DL5LhBqTqrCw6PUXxOCN7tSSX7 =EHmW -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Supporting interworking with repository branches on github
Hi Laurence,
Am 22.11.2011, 18:13 Uhr, schrieb Laurence Rowe :
> While the Zope Foundation deliberates on version control,
What's this about the Zope Foundation deliberating, why don't you just say
prevaricating?, on version control? I thought Tres presented a cogent
argument for maintaining the status quo and stick with svn.
> I think it's likely that development will continue using Git and Github.
Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy. FWIW the STD justification for
something ("everyone else has got syphilis so I want it, too.") is never a
good one.
Enough of the linguistic shilly-shallying. I do think that we need
something like PIPs or PLIPs for Zope 4 (jokingly referred to as ZIPs in
one of my recent posts) to work through some of the suggestions that have
been made.
Charlie
--
Charlie Clark
Managing Director
Clark Consulting & Research
German Office
Kronenstr. 27a
Düsseldorf
D- 40217
Tel: +49-211-600-3657
Mobile: +49-178-782-6226
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Supporting interworking with repository branches on github
As you are already aware, at the SF Zope sprint we used Git and github for our work. The work contained in https://github.com/zopefoundation is by people who have already signed the Zope Foundation contributor agreement. While the Zope Foundation deliberates on version control, I think it's likely that development will continue using Git and Github. We want to do this in a way that maintains flexibility for code committed to Git to also be committed to svn.zope.org, so it would be helpful to get a list of Name, Email, username for svn.zope.org committers to facilitate the creation of an author mapping file. (Presumably this information is in LDAP or similar.) We would of course be happy to hand administration rights of the github organization to the Zope Foundation if it was felt to be helpful in ensuring that contributions to that repository counted under the committer agreement. Laurence ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 4 roadmap
Op 22 nov 2011, om 16:36 heeft Laurence Rowe het volgende geschreven: Hello, > Do you have multiple acl_users folders in a single Silva site? Or is > it simply the same case as Plone where you might have multiple sites > within the one ZODB? > We do have an external users, that can be activated only for a part of a site to give temporary access to some locally defined users, that works with local acl_users within the same site. Those users are not global. Usually Silva sites are very large site, and not managed by one person, but by couple of them. They manages theirs external users independently through the Silva UI, where they want, without paying attention to what the other guy did. We can as well create multiple Silva root within the ZODB, but like Plone, but people don't do it that much. This is not a big issue for me, as I can change my code to adapt to the situation, but I think it is a major change in how Zope works, and that might be a blocking point for some people when they will want to upgrade. That might fragmentize the Zope 2 user group. > In the long run I expect that Plone will move to configuring multiple > sites in a single instance through the WSGI configuration (rather than > by creating sites through the ZMI.) In this scenario it would be > possible to have different authentication configurations for each site > in the WSGI config. That's an idea, but you will have 'to restart' to apply the changes. Regards, Sylvain, -- Sylvain Viollon -- Infrae t +31 10 243 7051 -- http://infrae.com Hoevestraat 10 3033GC Rotterdam -- The Netherlands ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 4 roadmap
On 22 November 2011 10:13, Sylvain Viollon wrote: > > Op 17 nov 2011, om 20:57 heeft Tres Seaver het volgende geschreven: > > Hello, > >> >> >> On 11/17/2011 02:05 PM, Laurence Rowe wrote: >>> On 17 November 2011 15:23, Martin Aspeli >>> wrote: On 17 November 2011 14:46, Laurence Rowe wrote: >> >> >> > - Move authentication out to WSGI middleware. +1 - anything we can do to make AccessControl simpler and more debuggable would be a big win. >> >> >> Note that there is a counter-trend here among the Pyramid crew: many >> developers *want* tight integration of authentication, particularly the >> login forms. >> > > And there is a major issue with this is that for the moment your > authentication depends from where you are in your Zope 2 application. Maybe > in some part of the application the authentication will be done using LDAP, > and not in some other: you can have a acl_users only for some part of the > application, and users there are available locally and not globally. That is > because the authentication is done after the traversing. If you want to do > this in a WSGI middleware, you will have to do the traversing in a WSGI > middleware before, otherwise lot of people won't be able to migrate theirs > applications to Zope 4, because the paradigm changed. > > I don't think this is a good idea because of that. Do you have multiple acl_users folders in a single Silva site? Or is it simply the same case as Plone where you might have multiple sites within the one ZODB? In the long run I expect that Plone will move to configuring multiple sites in a single instance through the WSGI configuration (rather than by creating sites through the ZMI.) In this scenario it would be possible to have different authentication configurations for each site in the WSGI config. Laurence ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 4 roadmap
On 11/22/2011 11:13 AM, Sylvain Viollon wrote: > Op 17 nov 2011, om 20:57 heeft Tres Seaver het volgende geschreven: >> Note that there is a counter-trend here among the Pyramid crew: many >> developers *want* tight integration of authentication, particularly the >> login forms. I'm not sure I fully agree with that observation. I think the trend is that trying to do the UI part of authentication in middleware turned out to be a mistake and people are moving away from that. But everything else does not need tighter integration. > And there is a major issue with this is that for the moment your > authentication depends from where you are in your Zope 2 application. Maybe > in some part of the application the authentication will be done using LDAP, > and not in some other: you can have a acl_users only for some part of the > application, and users there are available locally and not globally. That is > because the authentication is done after the traversing. If you want to do > this in a WSGI middleware, you will have to do the traversing in a WSGI > middleware before, otherwise lot of people won't be able to migrate theirs > applications to Zope 4, because the paradigm changed. Realistically though: how often is that used? Is that enough to warrant the extra complexity? WIchert. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 4 roadmap
Op 17 nov 2011, om 20:57 heeft Tres Seaver het volgende geschreven: Hello, > > > On 11/17/2011 02:05 PM, Laurence Rowe wrote: >> On 17 November 2011 15:23, Martin Aspeli >> wrote: >>> On 17 November 2011 14:46, Laurence Rowe wrote: > > > - Move authentication out to WSGI middleware. >>> >>> +1 - anything we can do to make AccessControl simpler and more >>> debuggable would be a big win. > > > Note that there is a counter-trend here among the Pyramid crew: many > developers *want* tight integration of authentication, particularly the > login forms. > And there is a major issue with this is that for the moment your authentication depends from where you are in your Zope 2 application. Maybe in some part of the application the authentication will be done using LDAP, and not in some other: you can have a acl_users only for some part of the application, and users there are available locally and not globally. That is because the authentication is done after the traversing. If you want to do this in a WSGI middleware, you will have to do the traversing in a WSGI middleware before, otherwise lot of people won't be able to migrate theirs applications to Zope 4, because the paradigm changed. I don't think this is a good idea because of that. Regards, Sylvain, -- Sylvain Viollon -- Infrae t +31 10 243 7051 -- http://infrae.com Hoevestraat 10 3033GC Rotterdam -- The Netherlands ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Revert removal of ++skin++ in Zope4?
Op 16 nov 2011, om 11:30 heeft Christian Theune het volgende geschreven: > Hi, > Hello, > I'd like to revert the removal of the ++skin++ traverser in Zope 4. > > As we're working on a replacement ZMI at a sprint currently (more > details about that in a bit) we'd like to leverage this feature. > > From my perspective, I value that Zope 2/4 has always made some choices > upfront that one could leverage right away. Especially as multiple > orthogonal components (like: your application and the ZMI) need to > leverage this plugin point, I'd rather have this provided by the framework. > > I couldn't find an argument anywhere why ++skin++ should be gone. > I like ++skin++, and used it. If it is gone it is not a big issue as it is not really difficult to rebuild. There was an issue, due to the perfect implementation of shiftNameToApplication in HTTPRequest.py, it never really worked with the URL computation. However, you could force it in a VirtualHost rewrite rule. Regards, Sylvain, -- Sylvain Viollon -- Infrae t +31 10 243 7051 -- http://infrae.com Hoevestraat 10 3033GC Rotterdam -- The Netherlands ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
