Dieter Maurer wrote:
Tres has earlier proposed a meta egg to represent versions.cfg in
a setuptools only (non buildout) environment.
A meta egg is an egg that only list dependencies and does not contain
code of its own.
Indeed, so we'd need 2 eggs for Zope 2 :-(
Something I bumped into
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Fri Apr 10 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Sat Apr 11 12:00:00 2009 UTC.
There were 8 messages: 8 from Zope Tests.
Tests passed OK
---
Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux
From: Zope Tests
Date: Fri Apr 10 20:53:29 EDT 2009
URL:
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 13:12, Chris Withers ch...@simplistix.co.uk wrote:
How would this be done if the Zope 2 egg or meta-egg hard-specifies the
versions?
You can just install that egg that needs updating, no? I'm not sure...
in worst case, you need to wait for update, just like you did
Chris Withers wrote:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Tres has earlier proposed a meta egg to represent versions.cfg in
a setuptools only (non buildout) environment.
A meta egg is an egg that only list dependencies and does not contain
code of its own.
Indeed, so we'd need 2 eggs for Zope 2 :-(
Roger Ineichen wrote:
Betreff: [Zope-dev] who wants to maintain Zope 3?
Is anyone interested in maintaining Zope 3?
/me is certainly not
With Zope 3 I mean:
I think we should take a look if we can build a minimal
setup which Plone, Grok and other projects can use. Do you think
there
Roger Ineichen wrote:
Hi Martijn
Betreff: [Zope-dev] who wants to maintain Zope 3?
Hi there,
Is anyone interested in maintaining Zope 3?
With Zope 3 I mean:
* the thing with the ZMI - do you care about the ZMI?
Of corse do we all need the UI part for manage the components
we
Martijn Faassen wrote:
If nobody is interested, we should perhaps stop talking about it
entirely. If people are just interested in the ZMI, perhaps we should
form a ZMI project.
Yes, but I'd like to *ban* the name ZMI, that is a Zope 2 construct and
should be left as such...
Chris
--
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Isn't zope.security a protection system against *accidental* mistakes in
building secure applications? I.e. I call a method and then I find out I
have no such access. Do we really need to protect the developer against
more arcane workarounds?
Yes, that's its stated
Martijn Faassen wrote:
b) prevent someone from viewing something with a public view because
they don't have access to content-level methods and attributes. (which I
take is your HTTP request as untrusted code scenario). (alternate
strategies are Grok's, which has view-level security but
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Once we have this extra information, we can publish it. Currently KGS
exports the known versions list as a buildout versions section
compatible list. We can't put the SVN URL in there. But we could also
export another file per KGS release that contained the package
Andreas Jung wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08.04.2009 15:31 Uhr, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Let's talk about Zope Classic and see whether renaming Zope 2 to that is
a step we can realistically take in the near future. Who is in favor of
that?
- -100
Renaming
Andreas Jung wrote:
There is not much to be added to the posting of Martin Aspelli. If you
want to rename Zope 2 then name it Zope 2 application server or Zope
Application Server in order to make its functionality more clear.
A name like Zope Classic is pretty pointless and information-free.
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
To stir things up: I would like to suggest renumbering the next Zope 2
release to Zope 4. That reflects the large refactoring that is being
done to clean up the codebase and fully eggify Zope. There are enough
changes to warrant a new major version bump.
I could
Gary Poster wrote:
Where's the visual diff?
Where's the interactive log of revisions?
Where's the repository browser?
FWIW, I don't know if TortoiseBzr has this. I'd be surprised if it
didn't have these, especially the first two.
TortoiseSVN's log is now *very* interactive. I'd be
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 13:12, Chris Withers ch...@simplistix.co.uk wrote:
How would this be done if the Zope 2 egg or meta-egg hard-specifies the
versions?
You can just install that egg that needs updating, no?
How, if I'm using buildout?
How, if I'm using
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
In all other debates we seemed to agree on not over specifying
requirements in setup.py files, I wonder why anybody still tries to
follow this route.
Tres argues for the easy_install case. If you don't have a meta-egg that
does the same as a versions section in a
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 15:48, Chris Withers ch...@simplistix.co.uk wrote:
You can just install that egg that needs updating, no?
How, if I'm using buildout?
I quote yourself:
With buildout-only, it's easy, just override the versions in the
versions section of the topmost buildout.cfg.
How,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Withers wrote:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Tres has earlier proposed a meta egg to represent versions.cfg in
a setuptools only (non buildout) environment.
A meta egg is an egg that only list dependencies and does not contain
code of its own.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Tres has earlier proposed a meta egg to represent versions.cfg in
a setuptools only (non buildout) environment.
A meta egg is an egg that only list dependencies and does not
Hi All,
Suppose I have the following:
a = Folder()
b = Folder()
c = Folder()
a.b = b
a.c = c
What's the canonical way of registering a view on b that is different to
a view of the same name on a, and ditto with c?
cheers,
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting
Hi All,
I've committed the tiny change necessary to be able to run Zope 2.12
from a (relatively) simple buildout.
I've attached the buildout.cfg, zope.conf.in and zeo.conf.in I've been
using to this message.
It would be nicer if the initialization bits could go away and the Zope2
egg could
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Roger Ineichen wrote:
If nobody is interested, we should perhaps stop talking about
it entirely. If people are just interested in the ZMI,
perhaps we should form a ZMI project.
The question is, can we find browser page pattern which Grok,
Chris Withers wrote:
I've attached the buildout.cfg, zope.conf.in and zeo.conf.in I've been
using to this message.
*sigh*, lets try that again...
I should also point out that, until a new Zope2 egg is released, you'll
need to have a Zope 2 trunk checkout as a develop egg (called Zope in
the
Hi All,
I've just released zdaemon 2.0.3, from the changelog:
- Added support to bootstrap on Jython.
- If the run directory does not exist it will be created. This allow to use
`/var/run/mydaemon` as run directory when /var/run is a tmpfs (LP
#318118).
Bugs Fixed
--
- No longer
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 06:37:18PM +0100, Chris Withers wrote:
Hi All,
Suppose I have the following:
a = Folder()
b = Folder()
c = Folder()
a.b = b
a.c = c
What's the canonical way of registering a view on b that is different to
a view of the same name on a, and ditto with c?
On 4/11/09 9:40 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
To stir things up: I would like to suggest renumbering the next Zope 2
release to Zope 4. That reflects the large refactoring that is being
done to clean up the codebase and fully eggify Zope. There are enough
changes to warrant
Chris McDonough wrote:
On 4/11/09 9:40 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
Zope 4 is built using Zope Toolkit 1.0, as is Grok, repoze.cfg, and
something else
repoze.bfg is actually *not* build with the Zope Toolkit at least as Zope
Toolkit is defined by the Steering Group. It uses only
On 4/11/09 4:39 PM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
On 4/11/09 9:40 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
Zope 4 is built using Zope Toolkit 1.0, as is Grok, repoze.cfg, and
something else
repoze.bfg is actually *not* build with the Zope Toolkit at least as Zope
Toolkit is defined by the
Hi
I have a couple of questions about Zope 3 rather than Zope Toolkit,
as it seems not many people are using Zope 3 the application server.
I have been working on a project using Zope 3 (the app server ) for
nearly 8 months
. The project is not finished (other stuff keeps coming up which
On 4/11/09 7:32 PM, Roger Ineichen wrote:
That much dependency cleanup would be fantastic.
Yes, cool, but what exactly whould you like to cleanup?
The bits that I use are already pretty nicely cleaned up. But in theory, if we
did a more reasonable job of dependency management, I'd be able
On 4/11/09 8:10 PM, Tim Hoffman wrote:
If someone where coming to the Zope party now and needed the full
blown security model and view mechanisms, and the zcml tied to that
model what would the choice be going forward?
repoze.bfg has pretty much gutted that model (which is fine as a
simpler
Hi Chris
can I specify security annotations on objects persisted in the zodb as
per zope3/zope2
which are over and above the class/view decleration.
bfg wasn't around when we started so I have looked too closely at bfg
from security point of view
T
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Chris
On 4/11/09 10:20 PM, Tim Hoffman wrote:
Hi Chris
can I specify security annotations on objects persisted in the zodb as
per zope3/zope2
which are over and above the class/view decleration.
Yes, for instance, in some code that manipulates a persistent object, you can
do
something like:
Ok so pretty much the same as the traditional Zope 3 model.
Are you still using the 'c' based zope.security or built your own.
On a side note I have got a big chunk of zope3 running on gae (had to
gut zope.security and zope.proxy) and plan on revisiting the whole
effort looking at bfg, but I
On 4/11/09 11:49 PM, Tim Hoffman wrote:
Ok so pretty much the same as the traditional Zope 3 model.
Are you still using the 'c' based zope.security or built your own.
We don't depend on zope.security and there is no C in the BFG security code
itself.
On a side note I have got a big chunk of
Hi Chris
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com wrote:
On 4/11/09 11:49 PM, Tim Hoffman wrote:
Ok so pretty much the same as the traditional Zope 3 model.
Are you still using the 'c' based zope.security or built your own.
We don't depend on zope.security and
On 4/12/09 12:02 AM, Tim Hoffman wrote:
Hi Chris
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Chris McDonoughchr...@plope.com wrote:
On 4/11/09 11:49 PM, Tim Hoffman wrote:
Ok so pretty much the same as the traditional Zope 3 model.
Are you still using the 'c' based zope.security or built your own.
37 matches
Mail list logo
