Re: [Zope3-dev] buildbot failure in Zope3 trunk 2.4 Windows 2000 fred-win
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope3 trunk 2.4 Windows 2000 fred-win. That machine temporarily lost it's DNS info, it's better now. -- Benji York Senior Software Engineer Zope Corporation ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] buildbot failure in Zope3 trunk 2.4 Windows 2000 fred-win
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope3 trunk 2.4 Windows 2000 fred-win. Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/ Build Reason: changes Build Source Stamp: 1123 Blamelist: fdrake,tim_one BUILD FAILED: failed svn Logs are attached. sincerely, -The Buildbot svn: Unknown hostname 'svn.zope.org' ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-Users] Re: [Zope3-dev] Freeze approaching quickly
On 10/27/05, Julien Anguenot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We did think hard on browser issues (especially IE ones) avoiding to > require the XML processing header for PT XML processing using a new 'IE > problem aware' sniffer that detects a PT as an XML document with > different approaches. I think, it was the only serious thread related to > browser compatibility around this work. Julien and I are in agreement on this point. What we haven't done that needs to be done, at least in terms of getting community approval, is making sure this is acceptable for the Zope 2 community, where the hope is that the Zope 3 page templates implementation will be used for Zope 2.10 as well. The Zope 2 community may remain more interested in the SGML-based HTML markup. The proposal has not been presented in the Zope 2 community at all. > The more controversial point is the deprecation of HTML 4 as *input* for > PT. xhtml will be required so that we can avoid all this HTML processing > mess and especially all the iencoding ssues around. It will simplify the > page template machinery big time and avoid costly internal operations at > the same time. The compatibility will be kept for 2 major releases (as > usual) After talking with Jim, this seems less important, and it also seems like it is a separate concern from the rest of these changes. This could be evaluated as a separate proposal after the implementation of the rest is complete. > We're having mostly encoding issues at this time 'cause of the HTML > processing. I already started to address this problem o Are there issues remaining there? Please detail them; I don't know what they are. > Fred, what is the status of the bytecode generation ? Is there more that > only encoding problems left ? The output still isn't right; most of this is bytecode generation. I've not been able to squeeze any time for this in yet. :-( > right. I'm fine with this. We will be more on the safe side :) Same here. Stability is definately key. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. "Society attacks early, when the individual is helpless." --B.F. Skinner ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-Users] Re: [Zope3-dev] Freeze approaching quickly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jim Fulton wrote: >>> with October winding down, the freeze on the trunk is coming quickly. >>> So, if you have any outstanding work, now is the time to get it done. >>> During the last week I have monitored the proposals and branches a >>> bit and I think most people are done with their work. >> >> >> [...] >> >>> Did I miss anyone? Now is the time to speak up! >> >> >> >> yes, I'd like to see the "Better XML support for PT" proposal as well : >> >> http://svn.zope.org/Zope3/branches/fdrake-anguenot_better_xml_support_for_pt/ >> >> http://www.zope.org/DevHome/Wikis/DevSite/Projects/ComponentArchitecture/BetterXMLSupportForPageTemplates >> >> >> I'll take time to finish the remaining issues around this in the >> following days and we'll be able to discuss it after this. >> >> Is it ok for everybody ? > > > I think this is too risky for this release: > > 1. This change seems to be pretty controversial. There is a lot of >fear that this will cause browser compatability problems. I think >this fear can only be addressed by an alpha release and it's too >late for that for the december Zope releases. We did think hard on browser issues (especially IE ones) avoiding to require the XML processing header for PT XML processing using a new 'IE problem aware' sniffer that detects a PT as an XML document with different approaches. I think, it was the only serious thread related to browser compatibility around this work. Behavior in the branch : - .xpt extension -> XML processing (to avoid sniffing and thus be quicker) (this may be controversial as well) - xmlns declarations -> XML processing (for IE) - XML processing header -> XML processing (current trunk behavior) The more controversial point is the deprecation of HTML 4 as *input* for PT. xhtml will be required so that we can avoid all this HTML processing mess and especially all the iencoding ssues around. It will simplify the page template machinery big time and avoid costly internal operations at the same time. The compatibility will be kept for 2 major releases (as usual) As well, the *output* will be xhtml (at least) in every case after this changes. > > 2. I get the impression from talking to Fred that there is still a lot >of work required to land this and that a significant amount of >his time would likely be required. I'm worrid that this could >be a major source of instability and I think we have enough of >those already. We're having mostly encoding issues at this time 'cause of the HTML processing. I already started to address this problem o Fred, what is the status of the bytecode generation ? Is there more that only encoding problems left ? > > I suggest the following: > > - You keep working on your branch and get it to the point that it is > *stable* and ready to merge. ok > > - Soon after the 3.2 release branch is made in early November, you > merge your stable branch to the trunk and we'll make a 3.3 alpha release > that people can use to try out this change. We'll let it be known > that the change will be included in 3.3 unless people discover serious > client-compatibility problems created by the change. You could use this > release or the trunk for your xmlforms experiments. > right. I'm fine with this. We will be more on the safe side :) J. - -- Julien Anguenot | Nuxeo R&D (Paris, France) CPS Platform : http://www.cps-project.org Zope3 / ECM : http://www.z3lab.org mail: anguenot at nuxeo.com; tel: +33 (0) 6 72 57 57 66 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDYPHJGhoG8MxZ/pIRAjlJAJ9uwj5YDTuxhErfgwpf1SsDv04nigCeNs/J 11YknMwiS47Rcrwv8krdUiM= =4fn1 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-Users] Re: [Zope3-dev] Freeze approaching quickly
Julien Anguenot wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Stephan Richter wrote: with October winding down, the freeze on the trunk is coming quickly. So, if you have any outstanding work, now is the time to get it done. During the last week I have monitored the proposals and branches a bit and I think most people are done with their work. [...] Did I miss anyone? Now is the time to speak up! yes, I'd like to see the "Better XML support for PT" proposal as well : http://svn.zope.org/Zope3/branches/fdrake-anguenot_better_xml_support_for_pt/ http://www.zope.org/DevHome/Wikis/DevSite/Projects/ComponentArchitecture/BetterXMLSupportForPageTemplates I'll take time to finish the remaining issues around this in the following days and we'll be able to discuss it after this. Is it ok for everybody ? I think this is too risky for this release: 1. This change seems to be pretty controversial. There is a lot of fear that this will cause browser compatability problems. I think this fear can only be addressed by an alpha release and it's too late for that for the december Zope releases. 2. I get the impression from talking to Fred that there is still a lot of work required to land this and that a significant amount of his time would likely be required. I'm worrid that this could be a major source of instability and I think we have enough of those already. I suggest the following: - You keep working on your branch and get it to the point that it is *stable* and ready to merge. - Soon after the 3.2 release branch is made in early November, you merge your stable branch to the trunk and we'll make a 3.3 alpha release that people can use to try out this change. We'll let it be known that the change will be included in 3.3 unless people discover serious client-compatibility problems created by the change. You could use this release or the trunk for your xmlforms experiments. 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 ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Freeze approaching quickly
On Thursday 27 October 2005 10:33, Julien Anguenot wrote: > Is it ok for everybody ? Yep, since another core developer was involved in the proposal, this is fine. I assume Jim had something to say about this already too. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Freeze approaching quickly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Stephan Richter wrote: > with October winding down, the freeze on the trunk is coming quickly. So, if > you have any outstanding work, now is the time to get it done. During the > last week I have monitored the proposals and branches a bit and I think most > people are done with their work. [...] > Did I miss anyone? Now is the time to speak up! yes, I'd like to see the "Better XML support for PT" proposal as well : http://svn.zope.org/Zope3/branches/fdrake-anguenot_better_xml_support_for_pt/ http://www.zope.org/DevHome/Wikis/DevSite/Projects/ComponentArchitecture/BetterXMLSupportForPageTemplates I'll take time to finish the remaining issues around this in the following days and we'll be able to discuss it after this. Is it ok for everybody ? > Once the feature freeze is complete, I would like to keep the trunk frozen > for > about a month, so that the contribution bar for bug fixes remains as low as > possible. And bugs we have plenty. As people start using Zope 3, we have had > quiet a number of reports, some of which are really serious, like i18nextract > being broken. > > Thus I propose two bug days: > > - Firday, November 4, 2005 > > - Friday, December 2, 2005 > > What do you guys think? Great. > Would people commit time on those days to the effort? I will. J. - -- Julien Anguenot | Nuxeo R&D (Paris, France) CPS Platform : http://www.cps-project.org Zope3 / ECM : http://www.z3lab.org mail: anguenot at nuxeo.com; tel: +33 (0) 6 72 57 57 66 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDYOUvGhoG8MxZ/pIRAmjtAJ9rsJnsBEwRUQUu2id5KhM+c0xAaQCfa/00 JFa1CKgLK5cDVm1gKN4pCEM= =xFqD -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] zope.wfmc UML
Stephan Richter wrote: On Thursday 27 October 2005 07:49, Adam Groszer wrote: I tried to keep it simple, but you're right I missed the work items. Now I updated the model also with the attributes and methods by using pyreverse. I hope it did not miss any. The graph does not establish the link between an application and the work items. In fact, it does not show the separation between workflow definition and implementation at all. Also, may I ask what this UML diagram does for you? I find this much harder to read than the README.txt files. If I would not know how zope.wfmc the graph would certainly not help me, because it still does not give any hint of what is described by XPDL and what has to be Python coded. Good question. What is the goal of this exercise? I'd rather not spend time reviewing this without a very goos reason. 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 ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Freeze approaching quickly
Hi everyone, with October winding down, the freeze on the trunk is coming quickly. So, if you have any outstanding work, now is the time to get it done. During the last week I have monitored the proposals and branches a bit and I think most people are done with their work. After Michael told me that WebDAV has to wait until 3.3., the only outstanding projects are: - Dimitry (hdima): Merge the password manager branch. I know he is close, so I am not worried. - Jim (J1m): Merge the new zope.testing framework. I am not worried about this either. - Stephan and other interested parties (srichter): Finish the static apidoc generator script. I don't know whether I will get done, because I have other things to do. The worst case scenario will be that there is no static apidoc for 3.2. - Roger (projekt01): He mentioned to me that he will fix the Boston skin to the new content provider and viewlet APIs. Since I think that the Boston skin is very pretty and a good show case of the new APIs, I want to include it into the release, if the work is done on Tuesday. Did I miss anyone? Now is the time to speak up! Once the feature freeze is complete, I would like to keep the trunk frozen for about a month, so that the contribution bar for bug fixes remains as low as possible. And bugs we have plenty. As people start using Zope 3, we have had quiet a number of reports, some of which are really serious, like i18nextract being broken. Thus I propose two bug days: - Firday, November 4, 2005 - Friday, December 2, 2005 What do you guys think? Would people commit time on those days to the effort? Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re[4]: [Zope3-dev] zope.wfmc UML
Hello Stephan, The model (In fact, maybe digging through the source?) made the picture clearer for me. My small problem is that I have to do this model anyway: - the app is for my college degree - there is a company who sponsors the work Both resist on the UML model :-( I don't like it also, but it is a _must_. Thursday, October 27, 2005, 2:25:53 PM, you wrote: > On Thursday 27 October 2005 07:49, Adam Groszer wrote: >> I tried to keep it simple, but you're right I missed the work items. >> Now I updated the model also with the attributes and methods by using >> pyreverse. I hope it did not miss any. > The graph does not establish the link between an application and the work > items. In fact, it does not show the separation between workflow definition > and implementation at all. > Also, may I ask what this UML diagram does for you? I find this much harder to > read than the README.txt files. If I would not know how zope.wfmc the graph > would certainly not help me, because it still does not give any hint of what > is described by XPDL and what has to be Python coded. > Regards, > Stephan -- Best regards, Adammailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Quote of the day: Memory should be the starting point of the present. ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] document management app
On Thursday 27 October 2005 08:26, Adam Groszer wrote: > I'm doing these reverse engineerings because I have to create a document > management app with the following basic requirements: > - Document storage > - Version control > - Workflow control > - Basic search and filter > - Basic export function > The focus is currently on the document follow-up. > Important is, that the workflow is user defined, not developer or > designer defined. > > As I checked zope.app.versioncontrol and zope.wfmc are my friends. You should join the Z3ECM team. Roger has built a high-level API for document-centric workflows already, as far as I know. > The versioncontrol module is quite clear. > > With wfmc, after checking the source, my current problems are: > - how to keep the process definition persistently in the ZODB? It's up to you. You might want to check SchoolTool; I have implemented a full WfMC workflow there; schooltool.level For example, in SchoolTool we have a promotion workflow for students. Thus I store the workflow on the student using an annotation. The process is attached and detached using subscribers to the IProcessStarted and IProcessFinished (?) events. > - as our current app design assigns one workflow for one document, I > think I can pass this document as the Process.context The process instance has no context. But you might want to make the document a workflow-relevant data attribute. It all depends on whether you want to make the document part of the workflow and use it in the workitems. > - how to connect the conditions of the arbitrary user defined workflow > to the (almost) static application, I think I'll have to put on the > UI the possible output parameters somehow I think you still do not fully understand the difference between the workflow definition and the "realization" (or implementation). The conditions are part of the definition, the applications are the hooks to the rest of the framework. Again, I think the SchoolTool promotion workflow might be a good start for you. It also has a detailed README.txt file for both, the Python API and the browser UI. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: Re[2]: [Zope3-dev] zope.wfmc UML
On Thursday 27 October 2005 07:49, Adam Groszer wrote: > I tried to keep it simple, but you're right I missed the work items. > Now I updated the model also with the attributes and methods by using > pyreverse. I hope it did not miss any. The graph does not establish the link between an application and the work items. In fact, it does not show the separation between workflow definition and implementation at all. Also, may I ask what this UML diagram does for you? I find this much harder to read than the README.txt files. If I would not know how zope.wfmc the graph would certainly not help me, because it still does not give any hint of what is described by XPDL and what has to be Python coded. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re[2]: [Zope3-dev] zope.wfmc UML
Dear Jim, I tried to keep it simple, but you're right I missed the work items. Now I updated the model also with the attributes and methods by using pyreverse. I hope it did not miss any. PS: please check my next mail "document management app" Monday, October 24, 2005, 10:40:33 PM, you wrote: > Adam Groszer wrote: >> Dear Jim, >> >> I tried to sketch an UML diagram from the zope.wfmc package. >> Can you please have a look if it is half way correct? > If I ignore the attributes, it looks pretty reasonable. > The picture is a bit incomplete because it doesn't show > work items, which are, after all, application defined. > Jim -- Best regards, Adammailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Quote of the day: The happiest people are less forgetting and more forgiving. - Anonymous zope.wfmc.png Description: PNG image ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
