On 11/30/05, Jens Vagelpohl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1 on a dedicated migration step. Might even be a chance for some
> other cleanups.
So the process would be something like:
1. Make a FrankenDateTime that uses the pickles of the DateTime, but
the methods of datetime.
2. Make a zope.datetim
On 30 Nov 2005, at 08:20, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 11/30/05, Jens Vagelpohl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 on a dedicated migration step. Might even be a chance for some
other cleanups.
So the process would be something like:
1. Make a FrankenDateTime that uses the pickles of the DateTime,
Andreas Jung wrote:
>
>
> --On 29. November 2005 15:13:45 +0100 Florent Guillaume <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> The security audit already happened, and led to checkins by Jim on
>> October 26 that preceded the release of Zope 2.8.4.
>>
>> Zope 2.8.4 is safe to use with python 2.4.
>
>
> L
This has been brought up and (rather cavalierly) dismissed before. I
challenge anyone to justify the following DateTime behavior:
>>> DateTime('2005-01-01').strftime('%Y-%m-%d')
'2004-12-31'
DateTimes are actually timestamps, and the current implementation
assumes that a date in ISO8601 format w
This might be the third time I hit this issue, and I've always given
up before. I hope this is the last time.
I have some product that would greatly benefit from being able to be
configured from within zope.conf. I don't want a separate
configuration file. Period.
Why? Apache doesn't have separat
Martijn Jacobs wrote at 2005-11-29 22:09 +0100:
> ...
>That will be true, but I was wondering where to draw the line, for
>example with perfomance issues. All the objects will be in a ZCatalog,
>to allow searching for example. But one 'ObjectManager' step less in the
>choice what to do with the
On 11/30/05, Sidnei da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have some product that would greatly benefit from being able to be
> configured from within zope.conf. I don't want a separate
> configuration file. Period.
Tres Seaver and I implemented this during the Goldegg sprint in
Fredericksburg, w
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 03:55:22PM -0500, Fred Drake wrote:
| On 11/30/05, Sidnei da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > I have some product that would greatly benefit from being able to be
| > configured from within zope.conf. I don't want a separate
| > configuration file. Period.
|
| Tres Seav
On 11/30/05, Sidnei da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I haven't seen this being checked in at all, maybe it's in Tres
> laptop?
These were committed to the trunk before the 2.9 branch was created:
r39652 | tseaver | 2005
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 04:27:11PM -0500, Fred Drake wrote:
| On 11/30/05, Sidnei da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > I haven't seen this being checked in at all, maybe it's in Tres
| > laptop?
|
| These were committed to the trunk before the 2.9 branch was created:
|
| --
Hello Dieter.
This must be a funny classification scheme...
Well, I wanted to have the discussion to be general about this thing
because I can imagine that this issue has been some point of discussion
before, among others, but I will be more specific to explain :
- The structure will have
Martin Aspeli wrote:
... and I'm one of those developers. I care, for the moment, about one
thing: Plone. I want Plone to move to use more Zope 3 technology, sure,
because it's clearly superior. But we're not going to re-write it from
scratch, and neither, I suspect, will most large Z2 appli
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 24 November 2005 09:17, Jim Fulton wrote:
Now (well, after the December release :), I think it's time to revisit
what the core of Zope 3 is and how we manage the repository. There has
been a trend to manage important components separately and link them in. I
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Bottom line: I find the risk of your having to dig through horrible Zope 2 code
much lower
than the chance of joint efforts on Zope 3 technology. Of course, it'd be quite
surprising
if I didn't believe that as the author of the proposal *wink*.
I agree with t
Alexander Limi wrote:
Can I add "use a common datetime implementation"? ;)
Philipp is already working on this :-)
(and I'm keen to help out too, if there's a sane way for me to do so...)
cheers,
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
- http://www.simpli
Gary Poster wrote:
Zope 2 depends on Zope 3, via Five. Zope 3 does not depend on Zope 2.
A very good point, but one which makes me feel that Zope 2 shouldn't be
merged in with Zope 3 ;-)
Put differently, if we're merging in Zope 2 into the repository, then
why not SchoolTool, or any of the
Lennart Regebro wrote:
I think this change can possibly make sense when we have replaced Zope
2 authentication with Zope 3s, and when we have replaces Zope 2
publisher with Zope 3s and when we have replaced the Zope 2 traversal
with Zope3s, and maybe a couple of other things.
At that point, Zope
Stephan Richter wrote:
* We have been constantly trying to make the trunk smaller, and suddenly we
blow it up? This does not fit. In fact, I would claim that zwiki and
bugtracker should now be moved out of the trunk and placed into top-level
dirs themselves. They should be tested using the buil
Tres Seaver wrote:
> >>Frankly, anything which attempts to "fix pickles" in-place smells bad to
> >>me. "Dump and reload" is how the RDBMS world handles this kind of
> >>problem, and it isn't because they don't have smart folks working on them.
> >
> > You're right, as nice as generations might be
19 matches
Mail list logo
