Hi there,
It is my understanding that the ZTK is primarily to adopt proven
solutions that arise from our community that we intend to be shared by
this community. I'll also note that Martian is already in use in
combination with Bluebream, Zope 2 and Grok.
With that, I was thinking, concerning
I haven't read through the whole discussion in detail, so I'm sure I
repeat some of what has been said already, but here is my point of
view.
1. Yes, Grok is pretty implicit. If it's soo implecit is a matter of
taste, but much of the implicitness makes sense. You typically do have
a model and a
Also, the decorators will always return the original component,
meaning they can easily be used as post-config:
@adapter(IMyFace, IMyFeet)
class FootInMouth(object):
...
Will mark the class as an adapter, but not register it.
@adapt(IMyFace, IMyFeet)
class FootInMouth(object):
...
Will
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 7:47 AM, Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com wrote:
...
4. zope.interface already does, and zope.component will as well, once
it's ported. That means we get things like:
class IMyFace(Interface):
whatevah
class IMyFeet(Interface):
something
,
Martijn
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 14:17, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com wrote:
Anyway, Grok's configuration is dependent on the rules you give it, so
it's possible to have a completely explicit set of directives with no
implicit fallback to default values whatsoever. Martian supports that
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 14:17, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com wrote:
...
With martian, the registration is then done by the grokking process,
but I think decorators would be a process that is more acceptable to
On 03/21/2011 03:07 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 14:17, Martijn Faassenfaas...@startifact.com wrote:
Anyway, Grok's configuration is dependent on the rules you give it, so
it's possible to have a completely explicit set of directives with no
implicit fallback to default
On 03/21/2011 03:28 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
I don't know what the right answer is ... at least not yet. :)
In Django and sqlalchemy declarative a meta class is used for this kind
of configuration. Since that is subclassing, it implies inheritance, I
think.
Of course metaclasses are not very
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 15:28, Jim Fulton j...@zope.com wrote:
This might be OK for @implements and maybe @adapts, which describe
behavior, but start feeling wonky to me for something like: @utility.
Well, the wonkyness comes from @utility *not* being inherited, while
@implements would be. That
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Martijn Faassen
faas...@startifact.com wrote:
On 03/21/2011 03:28 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
I don't know what the right answer is ... at least not yet. :)
In Django and sqlalchemy declarative a meta class is used for this kind
of configuration. Since that is
On 03/21/2011 04:08 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Martijn Faassen
faas...@startifact.com wrote:
On 03/21/2011 03:28 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
I don't know what the right answer is ... at least not yet. :)
In Django and sqlalchemy declarative a meta class is used for
On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 15:53 +0100, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 15:28, Jim Fulton j...@zope.com wrote:
This might be OK for @implements and maybe @adapts, which describe
behavior, but start feeling wonky to me for something like: @utility.
Well, the wonkyness comes from
On 03/21/2011 10:59 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 15:53 +0100, Lennart Regebro wrote:
It's easy and clear, but has the drawback of encouraging that
registration is done on import time, while scanning separates the
registration from the definition. I'm not sure how important
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com wrote:
On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 15:53 +0100, Lennart Regebro wrote:
...
It's easy and clear, but has the drawback of encouraging that
registration is done on import time, while scanning separates the
registration from the
On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 14:13 -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com wrote:
On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 15:53 +0100, Lennart Regebro wrote:
...
It's easy and clear, but has the drawback of encouraging that
registration is done on import time,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/21/2011 02:13 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com wrote:
On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 15:53 +0100, Lennart Regebro wrote:
...
It's easy and clear, but has the drawback of encouraging that
Previously Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Marius Gedminas wrote:
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 10:36:30PM +0100, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Subscribers and subscription adapters are particularly bad in this way,
since they are unnamed and thus can't be overridden, only amended to.
We've talked about
Marius Gedminas wrote:
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 10:36:30PM +0100, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Subscribers and subscription adapters are particularly bad in this way,
since they are unnamed and thus can't be overridden, only amended to.
We've talked about an off switch for ZCML before. Given that we
On Wednesday 06 August 2008, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
I'm working on a package for this functionality in z3c.unconfigure right
now. Name inspired by Martin's suggestion above; my original prototype
used had a different name but this is much better :).
Couldn't we just merge
El 6 Aug 2008, a las 16:47 , Stephan Richter escribió:
On Wednesday 06 August 2008, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
I'm working on a package for this functionality in z3c.unconfigure
right
now. Name inspired by Martin's suggestion above; my original
prototype
used had a different name but
Hi Philipp
Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] Re: zcml filtering
[...]
I'm +1 on zc.configuration.
z3c.unconfigure, however, will contain zope.component
specific code to unconfigure subscribers (which currently
have no useful discriminator). So it's a hack to make it work
with existing Zope
El 6 Aug 2008, a las 17:17 , Roger Ineichen escribió:
I'm +1 on zc.configuration.
z3c.unconfigure, however, will contain zope.component
specific code to unconfigure subscribers (which currently
have no useful discriminator). So it's a hack to make it work
with existing Zope code out there. If
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
But yes, that sounds like a great idea. Feel free to do it ;). I
probably won't have time to worry about this any time soon. I'm just
trying to fix an issue at hand.
Thanks a lot for doing that, by the way. :)
Martin
--
Author of `Professional Plone
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
I have an interesting problem in the world of Zope 2 and zcml: CMFCore
registers an handleDynamicTypeCopiedEvent subscriber which does
something that I want to prevent at all costs, so I am trying to make
sure it is not subscriber. That appears to be impossible!
I can
Hey,
On 10/20/07, Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
Since this appears to be a rare case that is the exception, what about
using the new ZCML exclude framework for this case? You need to know
what you are doing, but this use case is for people who know
Hey,
On 10/20/07, Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Zope 2 had (for products) all three things together.
It was felt that this was a too tight coupling. Therefore, for Zope 3
the paradigma explicit is better than implicit (a paradigma, that I
personally dislike and find wrong)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey,
On 10/20/07, Lennart Regebro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/20/07, Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd say it is a general concern of a framework to try to avoid how often
you need to repeat yourself. Right
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
[snip]
So I turned things around: if I state in my egg information that I
require another package that means I need to have that package
available and
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2007-10-20 03:15 +0200:
...
I'd say it is a general concern of a framework to try to avoid how often
you need to repeat yourself. Right now you to use a Zope 3 package you
need to do the following things:
* list the egg in your setup.py dependencies
* load the ZCML
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
[snip]
So I turned things around: if I state in my egg information that I
require another package that means I need to have that package
available and functional. Which suggests
Fred Drake wrote:
On 10/17/07, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right - but you're building an application, and you're pretty
experienced with Zope. A lot of Plone users just want to install a
plug-in (a product), basically. Before, they just dropped it into a
It sounds like your
Tres Seaver wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
[snip]
So I turned things around: if I state in my egg information that I
require another package that means I need to have that package
available and functional. Which suggests that its zcml has to be loaded
before mine. And that is exactly what I am
Hey,
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Fred Drake wrote:
[snip]
For example, say you want to install oi.plum. You need to add the line
'oi.plum' twice - once under 'eggs' and once under 'zcml' in your
buildout.cfg. Forget the latter, and the package doesn't work properly
(or at all).
I actually really
On Friday 19 October 2007 21:17, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
I may not *want* the other package's ZCML to be loaded: some of its
policies may not be appropriate for my application.
+1. Happens to me all the time.
Since this appears to be a rare case that is the exception,
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Fred Drake wrote:
On 10/17/07, Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A common issue we are seeing is that we have eggs depending on each
other, but they still need to load the zcml from those dependencies
somehow. As a temporary solution to play with the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Fred Drake wrote:
On 10/17/07, Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A common issue we are seeing is that we have eggs depending on each
other, but they still need to load the zcml from
On Oct 17, 2007, at 8:04 PM, Ross Patterson wrote:
...
I'm new to eggs, but maybe both sides could be satisfied with an
approach like extra_requires?
Extras are evil. See other posts of mine for explanations of why.
You could list oi.plum [zope.zcml] when
you require oi.plum *and* its ZCML
Tres Seaver wrote:
I may not *want* the other package's ZCML to be loaded: some of its
policies may not be appropriate for my application. I think that the
library vs. pluggable application distinction is valid here: maybe
you want to define an entry point in the egg which a given pluggable
On Oct 18, 2007, at 8:17 AM, Tres Seaver wrote:
I may not *want* the other package's ZCML to be loaded: some of its
policies may not be appropriate for my application. I think that the
library vs. pluggable application distinction is valid here:
maybe
you want to define an entry point in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
I may not *want* the other package's ZCML to be loaded: some of its
policies may not be appropriate for my application. I think that the
library vs. pluggable application distinction is valid here:
Fred Drake wrote:
On 10/17/07, Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A common issue we are seeing is that we have eggs depending on each
other, but they still need to load the zcml from those dependencies
somehow. As a temporary solution to play with the concept I added
something simple to
On 10/17/07, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The main win, IMHO, is to avoid the requirement for people to install
slugs for third party products. Slugs suck - they are confusing to
explain and people forget them all the time. Buildout makes it a bit
easier, but it's still not a
Fred Drake wrote:
On 10/17/07, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The main win, IMHO, is to avoid the requirement for people to install
slugs for third party products. Slugs suck - they are confusing to
explain and people forget them all the time. Buildout makes it a bit
easier, but it's
Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Fred Drake wrote:
On 10/17/07, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The main win, IMHO, is to avoid the requirement for people to install
slugs for third party products. Slugs suck - they are confusing to
explain and people forget them all the time.
On 10/17/07, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right - but you're building an application, and you're pretty
experienced with Zope. A lot of Plone users just want to install a
plug-in (a product), basically. Before, they just dropped it into a
It sounds like your concerns center around
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
A common issue we are seeing is that we have eggs depending on each
other, but they still need to load the zcml from those dependencies
somehow. As a temporary solution to play with the concept I added
something simple to
Andreas Jung wrote:
I added Products/PageTemplates/configure.zcml to register an utility.
That works fine when running Zope however zopectl test won't work
properly anymore because the utility registration does not seem to
happen when running the tests. Bug or feature?
Tests need to do their
On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 12:14:32PM +0100, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
So, there are two options:
- modify the setUp() of the tests in question to
provideUtility(your_utility)
- make the respective tests run in a layer that loads the ZCML. I don't
think layer support is on the trunk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
I added Products/PageTemplates/configure.zcml to register an utility.
That works fine when running Zope however zopectl test won't work
properly anymore because the utility registration does
On 7 Jan 2007, at 20:44 , Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
I added Products/PageTemplates/configure.zcml to register an
utility.
That works fine when running Zope however zopectl test won't work
properly
I just made ZopeTestCase defer all loading until it's layer(essentially
deferring the import of ZopeLite which is sort of a subpar way to handle
things and using a registry to handle installProducts). most of what
happens in zopelite itself should be the layer(rather than carefully
isolating
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Anyway, while I have my criticisms of ZCML, too much typing is really
not very important in my list. You can get it somewhat shorter, I'm
sure, but not *that* much shorter. I'd worry more about the reading part
than the writing.
More typing = more reading in my books, so
Stephan Richter wrote:
Can you be more specific? I think ZCML is very compact.
Well, I'm hoping to take a proper look at the latest Z3 some time
soon, so I'll let you know after that and shut up on the subject in the
meantime ;-)
cheers,
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python
Lennart Regebro wrote:
You know the feeling when a third party product has the wrong
permission or no permission at all on something? What are you gonna
do? Subclass: Lots of work. Patch: You gotta keep it updated. With
ZCML, you override it. TADA!
Yes, this is all stuff I know and love about Z3
Chris Withers wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
You know the feeling when a third party product has the wrong
permission or no permission at all on something? What are you gonna
do? Subclass: Lots of work. Patch: You gotta keep it updated. With
ZCML, you override it. TADA!
Yes, this is all stuff I
On Apr 8, 2005 12:54 PM, Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
You know the feeling when a third party product has the wrong
permission or no permission at all on something? What are you gonna
do? Subclass: Lots of work. Patch: You gotta
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Apr 8, 2005 12:54 PM, Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
A benefit of using an XML format is that many editors will happily
both do syntax high-lighting, some sort of auto-indentation, and
automatic commenting/uncommenting. A non-standard syntax wouldn't do
On Friday 08 April 2005 03:24, Chris Withers wrote:
Yes, this is all stuff I know and love about Z3 ;-);-) When I last saw
ZCML, it was horrible though. I don't mind XML, just not if it lots of
pointless typing...
Can you be more specific? I think ZCML is very compact.
Regards,
Stephan
--
On Friday 08 April 2005 07:34, Lennart Regebro wrote:
For me, the main drawback with ZCML is that WingIDE doesn't to auto
completion on it. ;) An ZCML editor that automatically popped up a
list of the supported keywords for every statement would be really
nice. :-p:
Yeah, I talked to Stephan
On Apr 8, 2005 3:09 PM, Stephan Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 08 April 2005 07:34, Lennart Regebro wrote:
For me, the main drawback with ZCML is that WingIDE doesn't to auto
completion on it. ;) An ZCML editor that automatically popped up a
list of the supported keywords for
Lennart Regebro wrote:
[snip]
For me, the main drawback with ZCML is that WingIDE doesn't to auto
completion on it. ;) An ZCML editor that automatically popped up a
list of the supported keywords for every statement would be really
nice. :-p
Actually emacs + nxml + the Relax NG schema
Richard Jones wrote:
Is this a general trend for Zope 2? I'd rather see Zope 2 kinda avoid ZCML if
possible. It's just one of those personal preference things, I suppose, but I
know I'm not the only one who isn't that enamored of the ZCML approach. I
actually like having the declarations all in
Chris Withers wrote:
Richard Jones wrote:
Is this a general trend for Zope 2? I'd rather see Zope 2 kinda avoid
ZCML if possible. It's just one of those personal preference things, I
suppose, but I know I'm not the only one who isn't that enamored of
the ZCML approach. I actually like having
Richard Jones wrote:
Is this a general trend for Zope 2? I'd rather see Zope 2 kinda avoid ZCML if
possible. It's just one of those personal preference things, I suppose, but I
know I'm not the only one who isn't that enamored of the ZCML approach.
ZCML started out for me (and as an experinced
65 matches
Mail list logo
