mode)
for the hosting so true static routes aren't being handled by Pyramid, but
cycling a new dbconn for every request is still not the right way to do it
in my book.
Seth
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
pylons-devel group.
To post to this group
object on the NewRequest event object?
Thanks,
Seth
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
pylons-devel group.
To post to this group, send email to pylons-devel@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
pylons-devel+unsubscr
manually, or am I missing something here?
Thanks,
Seth
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
pylons-devel group.
To post to this group, send email to pylons-devel@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
pylons-devel+unsubscr
Currently I'm using the default cookie/session factories, but I'm looking to
actually set cookies that last longer than the session so the
request.session solution doesn't apply (unless I'm missing something
there--I don't think it can be given a max_age). The callback method you
suggested
Thanks for the suggestions. I actually can accomplish what I'd like to do
using the pyramid.testing DummyRequest object without having to dive all the
way into WebTest. As long as I'm not hearing any warnings against that here
I think I'll move forward with that.
Seth
--
You received
worked well together.
Perhaps I will give it another go and be more patient this time.
Thanks again,
Seth
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
pylons-devel group.
To post to this group, send email to pylons-devel@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from
(add_db_connection, NewRequest)
config.add_subscriber(add_identity, NewRequest)
config.add_subscriber(add_renderer_globals, BeforeRender)
Is Pyramid more efficient if I combine both those NewRequest subscribers
into one subscriber call, or does it matter?
Seth
--
You received this message because you
Good to know. Thanks again!
Seth
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
pylons-devel group.
To post to this group, send email to pylons-devel@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
pylons-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
Chris,
This is such exciting news! Thanks for all your hard work (and everyone else
who has contributed).
Seth
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
pylons-devel group.
To post to this group, send email to pylons-devel@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe
Thanks for all the input and I suppose Marius' answer is the most
straightforward solution. Perhaps I was expecting something a little more
like Mike's category style implementation, but I can see how that could
become too much complexity for too little value.
With regards to the peek_flash
the
config.testing_securitypolicy method (has_permission reports that No
authentication policy in use.). Was this tweaked for this release (I'm not
seeing anything in the changelogs)?
- Seth
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
pylons-devel group
11 matches
Mail list logo
