Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: skin support for xmlrpc
On 13.09.2007, at 18:07, Roger Ineichen wrote: Hi Betreff: [Zope3-dev] Re: skin support for xmlrpc On 13.09.2007, at 17:28, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Christian Theune wrote: Let me propose a change: 1. We revert the change. Any news on this? Yes. Over the last few days I pondered about how to do it without xmlrpc layers. But there doesn't seem to be a way nice and easy way. So I will need to implement the layer support in a different package. The revert will be done till monday, maybe already tomorrow. Sorry for the delay. Anyway, could somebody who had an error with that tell me what the problem was? I just heard we had a problem. Why revert? We need layers in every kind of context, request adapter registration because it's the concept which permission get registered in different projects on a single server sharing packages. The problem is simple, XML-RPC has used the IBrowserRequest and now it uses the IXMLRPCRequest. This is why the XML-RPC views in different projects don't work anymore. This means the XML-RPC uses a browser request which is bad because it enables the views everywhere. No no. XML-RPC did use IXMLRPCRequest before. All I added was the IXMLRPCSkinType which did not exist. What I also changed is the ++skin++ traverser which was registered for * instead of IBrowserRequest. But I consider the old behaviour a bug since skins were only valid with IBrowserRequest. The solution is to provide the request interface which was the default before the changes. But don't take the option way to use other request interface then the default for registration. I'll need it. Because I'll take care on security and don't like to register everything on whatever. Before I'll revert the layer-support will be there in a third party package, probably using ++api++. -- Christian Zagrodnick gocept gmbh co. kg · forsterstrasse 29 · 06112 halle/saale www.gocept.com · fon. +49 345 12298894 · fax. +49 345 12298891 PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: skin support for xmlrpc
Am Freitag, den 14.09.2007, 02:49 -0400 schrieb Fred Drake: On 9/14/07, Christian Zagrodnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Before I'll revert the layer-support will be there in a third party package, probably using ++api++. Better to be specific than general when it's for a specific type of request; why not ++xmlrpc++? Unless ++api++ is for more than XML-RPC support; perhaps it should be for IHTTPRequest? I'd actually rather avoid a proliferation of ++namespace++ usages myself, and prefer ++api++ for IHTTPRequest. +1 -- gocept gmbh co. kg - forsterstrasse 29 - 06112 halle/saale - germany www.gocept.com - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - phone +49 345 122 9889 7 - fax +49 345 122 9889 1 - zope and plone consulting and development signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
AW: [Zope3-dev] Re: skin support for xmlrpc
Hi Cristian Betreff: Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: skin support for xmlrpc [...] The problem is simple, XML-RPC has used the IBrowserRequest and now it uses the IXMLRPCRequest. This is why the XML-RPC views in different projects don't work anymore. This means the XML-RPC uses a browser request which is bad because it enables the views everywhere. No no. XML-RPC did use IXMLRPCRequest before. All I added was the IXMLRPCSkinType which did not exist. What I also changed is the ++skin++ traverser which was registered for * instead of IBrowserRequest. But I consider the old behaviour a bug since skins were only valid with IBrowserRequest. Ah, sorry, I was wrong then. But we still need the option to register XML-RPC views for explicit request types. The solution is to provide the request interface which was the default before the changes. But don't take the option way to use other request interface then the default for registration. I'll need it. Because I'll take care on security and don't like to register everything on whatever. Before I'll revert the layer-support will be there in a third party package, probably using ++api++. The only thing what I need is a directive which allows me to register XML-RPC views on a explicit skin type then. Then this will avoid to get XML-RPC views for all browser request types. right? I'll work at the same topic to at the sprint and implement this option for the zif.jsonserver. Right now the zif.jsonserver depends on the xmlrpc metaconfigure directive. If this your changes will fit, I can still depend on this. Thanks for taking care on this issue. Regards Roger Ineichen -- Christian Zagrodnick gocept gmbh co. kg . forsterstrasse 29 . 06112 halle/saale www.gocept.com . fon. +49 345 12298894 . fax. +49 345 12298891 ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: skin support for xmlrpc
On 14.09.2007, at 08:49, Fred Drake wrote: On 9/14/07, Christian Zagrodnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Before I'll revert the layer-support will be there in a third party package, probably using ++api++. Better to be specific than general when it's for a specific type of request; why not ++xmlrpc++? Unless ++api++ is for more than XML-RPC support; perhaps it should be for IHTTPRequest? I'd actually rather avoid a proliferation of ++namespace++ usages myself, and prefer ++api++ for IHTTPRequest. So you're suggesting using ++api++ to choose the request type for all IHTTPRequests. That's fine for me. I just wonder why I should remove the skin support for XML-RPC since that is just choosing the request type... /me is confused. -- Christian Zagrodnick gocept gmbh co. kg · forsterstrasse 29 · 06112 halle/saale www.gocept.com · fon. +49 345 12298894 · fax. +49 345 12298891 PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Lovely Zope3 Taming
Even Girls can learn it! Your Trainer is wolf famous Zope Tamer Philipp von Weitershausen. September 19th - 21st (that's soon!) for more information: http://www.lovelysystems.com/batlogg/2007/09/14/ lovely-zope3-taming/ cheers Jodok -- Beautiful is better than ugly. -- The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters Jodok Batlogg, Lovely Systems Schmelzhütterstraße 26a, 6850 Dornbirn, Austria phone: +43 5572 908060, fax: +43 5572 908060-77 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope3-Users] Lovely Zope3 Taming
On 14.09.2007, at 11:47, Ivan Horvath wrote: Dear Jodok, can you also propose some accommodation for this event? just contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] - she'll organize something for you in case you are interested. jodok ps.: please contact me / maria-anna ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) directly and don't cc the lists in future. On 9/14/07, Jodok Batlogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Even Girls can learn it! Your Trainer is wolf famous Zope Tamer Philipp von Weitershausen. September 19th - 21st (that's soon!) for more information: http://www.lovelysystems.com/batlogg/ 2007/09/14/ lovely-zope3-taming/ cheers Jodok -- Beautiful is better than ugly. -- The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters Jodok Batlogg, Lovely Systems Schmelzhütterstraße 26a, 6850 Dornbirn, Austria phone: +43 5572 908060, fax: +43 5572 908060-77 ___ Zope3-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users -- Sparse is better than dense. -- The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters Jodok Batlogg, Lovely Systems Schmelzhütterstraße 26a, 6850 Dornbirn, Austria phone: +43 5572 908060, fax: +43 5572 908060-77 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic 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] Re: What does python 3000 mean for zope?
Hi Jim. Fair enough. This gives me better sense of the picture. In a year or two from now I would not be surprised to see jython at 2.5 which could be interesting for the python frameworks. It also has a plan to evolve to P3K as well. All python projects will get there regardless. I am certain there will be some anticipation to port packages when P3K is out the door or as it evolves. Personally, I want to stay on the front end of the language. A good part of my enjoyment in development is wrapped in working and moving with the state of the art. Regards, David Jim Fulton wrote: On Sep 11, 2007, at 10:28 AM, David Pratt wrote: I was hoping Jim might respond to this thread since I am certain there is concern about what this means for the future of Zope. I am hoping that core communities of python framework developers may come together on what is in their best interests. OK, here's my opinion. I am not speaking for ZC. I don't think we should worry until Python 3 is much farther along. I agree with those who think that it will be hard to move to Python 3. Put another way, I think the benefit won't be worth the effort. My suspicion is that this will be true for *lots* of projects. I expect Python 2 to be with us for a long time. This is just a wild guess. A lot can change in a year or 2. I think our official position should be that Zope is a Python 2 application and we'll evaluate opportunities to leverage Python 3 over time as they present themselves. I'm not going to reply to any replies to this post as I don't intend to spend any more time on this issue myself. Jim -- Jim Fultonmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporationhttp://www.zope.comhttp://www.zope.org ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
AW: [Zope3-dev] Re: skin support for xmlrpc
Hi Fred Betreff: Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: skin support for xmlrpc [...] Can't say I've ever advocated removing that, but I'm one of those skin-means-request-type folks. If you register views for a base request type, you probably will open a backdor in other projects. Because if someone uses such a package which has views regsitered for a conatext and standard request type this views are available in every instance which the discriminator will fit. Layers - skins or the z3c.baseregsitry are concepts for avoid this. Regards Roger Ineichen I suspect the hangup some people have is really about the skin name for something that's not about browser presentation. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr.fdrake at gmail.com Chaos is the score upon which reality is written. --Henry Miller ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/dev%40projekt01.ch ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
