> I don't know how people are currently using Zope with 2.2.
Well, I guess I could make a check for the Zope version, so not to tie up
Zope 2.6 to Python 2.2.
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
In my own casual experimentation, Zope worked okay by itself on Mandrake
Linux 8.2b4 with Python 2.2, but ZEO refused to work.
For what it's worth.
Gary
- Original Message -
From: "Matt Behrens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Lennart Regebro wrote:
>
> > Are you planning to up the python version
Lennart Regebro wrote:
> Are you planning to up the python version to 2.2? Because in that case I'd
> be happy to put in Authentication support in MailHost. Smtplib.py in 2.1.2
> doesn't support authentication.
I don't know how people are currently using Zope with 2.2. There is
probably some r
Are you planning to up the python version to 2.2? Because in that case I'd
be happy to put in Authentication support in MailHost. Smtplib.py in 2.1.2
doesn't support authentication.
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mail
>FYI, everyone who's following this: I have hijacked
>http://dev.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Proposals/InstallationAndConfiguration
>for this purpose. :-)
Awesome. Exactly how I'd like the default zope install to be structured.
:-)
Adam
___
Zope-Dev m
Behrens Matt - Grand Rapids wrote:
> This isn't exciting by any means unless you're one of the people who
> package Zope up for distribution, or maybe you're one of the people who
> manage lots of little Zopes on one system; but I'd like to revive the
> "grand unified Zope installation and con
Hi:
I think that the possibility of having "inactive" objects, objects that
are instantied, exist in the ZODB and in the folder tree but are
invisibile to the Zope machinery (acquisition, rendering, itemizing)
by setting/unsettting a property flag would also be something of
extreme usefu
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!
>
> Hi:
>
> I would like to propose my "Paste Reference"/symlink hack for
> i
Joachim Werner writes:
> - Storage should be completely separate from the data model. It should be
> possible to design a content class and then store it either in ZODB, the
> file system, an RDBMS or an LDAP server or whatever.
Isn't that already possible (implement your alternative storage
th
At 02:10 PM 3/6/2002 +0100, Jerome Alet wrote:
>On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Joachim Werner wrote:
>
> > - All the basic API (like "store", "delete", "edit", ...) must be free of
> > HTTP specifics, so that I can modifiy content either over a web frontend or
> > over WebDAV, FTP, ... - and even via a "fat
On Wednesday 06 March 2002 04:58 am, Joachim Werner wrote:
> Hi!
>
> What I'd expect from Zope 2.6 depends a bit on when Zope 3 will be
> available.
>
> If we are talking about a couple of months, I'd prefer only having bug
> fixes in 2.5.x (and no 2.6 at all). If we are talking about more than ha
Hi:
I would like to propose my "Paste Reference"/symlink hack for
inclusion into Zope 2.6
C U!
-- Mario Valente
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encodin
On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Joachim Werner wrote:
> - All the basic API (like "store", "delete", "edit", ...) must be free of
> HTTP specifics, so that I can modifiy content either over a web frontend or
> over WebDAV, FTP, ... - and even via a "fat client" application like a
> wxPython application. Curr
> This isn't exciting by any means unless you're one of the people who
> package Zope up for distribution, or maybe you're one of the people who
> manage lots of little Zopes on one system; but I'd like to revive the
> "grand unified Zope installation and control" proposal that has been
> floate
+1 for cookie crumbler
Ah right, i didn't look at that before, thats what i thought of.
And with the mention of the "Zope Expansion Kit" i think this really
should go into core (or somewhere very next to id), including an option
to be created with a standard user folder automatically.
On Sat, M
On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 10:47, Chris Withers wrote:
> seb bacon wrote:
> >
> > Yes - I would bet the performace difference is in the order of
> > hundredths of a second.
>
> Which I would prefer not to have added to the several hundred other
>hundredths-of-a-second
> little differences-that-peopl
seb bacon wrote:
>
> Yes - I would bet the performace difference is in the order of
> hundredths of a second.
Which I would prefer not to have added to the several hundred other
hundredths-of-a-second
little differences-that-people-thought-wouldn't-make-a-difference that have been added
to
Zop
On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 03:47, Richard Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:40, Casey Duncan wrote:
> > I agree, monkey patches are perfect for this. That
> > makes them totally transparent to the application and
> > Zope for that matter. There's nothing wrong with them
> > in the right application.
On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 03:55, Anthony Baxter wrote:
> > I think the performance hit is really quite minimal for two if statements at
> > the entry and exit point(s) of a function to turn the behaviour on and off.
>
> I'm not convinced. Those small increments of performance really add up.
> Look a
Anthony Baxter wrote:
>
> >>> seb bacon wrote
> > > [CallProfiler]
> > FWIW, my own opinion is that it should not take the 'MonkeyPatch'
> > approach.
>
> Why? Any other approach means a slowdown in the Zope code regardless of
> whether profiling is turned on or off... monkeypatching means you e
From: "Chris Withers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Gary Poster wrote:
> >
> > If there is any interest in spiffing the Virtual Host Folder up for
> > inclusion in Zope 2.6, I'll do the work. It requires Ordered Folder
0.5.1,
> > and needs just a bit more spiffing.
>
> Why does it require ordered folder?
> My main concern is the use of monkeypatching in the core makes it difficult
> for someone else to release a product that also MPs without them worrying
> about whether something has already patched code. Especially when we're
> talking about MP'ing so many core Zope objects (yes, I count >1
On Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:40, Casey Duncan wrote:
> I agree, monkey patches are perfect for this. That
> makes them totally transparent to the application and
> Zope for that matter. There's nothing wrong with them
> in the right application.
My main concern is the use of monkeypatching in the core m
--- Anthony Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>> seb bacon wrote
> > > [CallProfiler]
> > FWIW, my own opinion is that it should not take
> the 'MonkeyPatch'
> > approach.
>
> Why? Any other approach means a slowdown in the Zope
> code regardless of
> whether profiling is turned on or off.
>>> seb bacon wrote
> > [CallProfiler]
> FWIW, my own opinion is that it should not take the 'MonkeyPatch'
> approach.
Why? Any other approach means a slowdown in the Zope code regardless of
whether profiling is turned on or off... monkeypatching means you end
up with zero slowdown when not prof
Perhaps synchronization over ZEO as well as XML-RPC? Thoughts?
Sean
-Original Message-
From: Andy McKay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 5:04 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!
> I'd like to
> Ive never really understood the motivation for wanting https support
> direct in Zope ZServer isnt robust enough to be exposed to the raw
> internet without risk. Today (and perhaps for the forseeable future,
> because its not clear that Zope want to take on the responsibility of
ZServer ma
> I'd like to see the ZSyncer Product, or a variant thereof, included in
> Zope by default. That is, I'd like "Synchronization", to a be a default
> property of Zope objects, so that objects/content can be pushed and
> pulled between two Zope installations.
Thanks for the enthusiasm but its stil
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 21:25, seb bacon wrote:
> > > Absolutely ... and I would also like to see Richards excellent Call
> > > Profiler service become part of the core.
> >
> > I'm definitely putting the profiler into 2.6 - there's just an open
> > question of where it gets put. The question was asked
Gary Poster wrote:
>
> If there is any interest in spiffing the Virtual Host Folder up for
> inclusion in Zope 2.6, I'll do the work. It requires Ordered Folder 0.5.1,
> and needs just a bit more spiffing.
Why does it require ordered folder? What does that have to do with virtual hosting?
chee
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 2:54 AM
To: Brian Lloyd; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!
> I wholeheartedly agree that 2.6 needs to be significantly a community
> effort. While I know that many people are engaged in the Zo
Christian Theune wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 07:53:35AM -0500, Paul Everitt wrote:
>
>>A gentle reminder on some of the posts in this thread. Please don't
>>respond with "I'd really like ." Respond with "I'm
>>willing to do the work for ." That's part of the point
>>with Brian's note.
On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 07:53:35AM -0500, Paul Everitt wrote:
>
> A gentle reminder on some of the posts in this thread. Please don't
> respond with "I'd really like ." Respond with "I'm
> willing to do the work for ." That's part of the point
> with Brian's note.
>
> You don't _have_ to d
On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 03:00:10PM +, Toby Dickenson wrote:
> Are there any common scenarios which need the protection given by
> https, but do not need the protection given by a front-end-proxy?
>
Yes, running zope in intranet environments where the connection to
a localhost proxy is not po
On Fri, 2002-03-01 at 04:16, Dario Lopez-Kästen wrote:
> I'd like to see ZSQL methods altered so that bind variables could be used in
> SQL queries.
+1, even though MySQL doesn't bind variables (yet, apparently in the
works for 4.0).
Another thing I would like (and could probably write) is an ad
On 3/1/02 7:30 AM, "Chris McDonough" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd suggest starting with the combination of Evan's zopemake and zctl
> scripts. One thing that zopemake could be extended with is an
> autoconf-style "configure" that figures out where the appropriate version of
> Python is, whic
On Fri, 01 Mar 2002 09:48:08 -0500, marc lindahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I would say, make SSL part of the standard z2.py, so you can turn on/off,
>specify address, etc. of https ports just as you do with http ports (and of
>course integrated with siteaccess2, etc.)
Ive never really understo
I would say, make SSL part of the standard z2.py, so you can turn on/off,
specify address, etc. of https ports just as you do with http ports (and of
course integrated with siteaccess2, etc.)
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zop
ge -
From: "Paul Everitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Behrens Matt - Grand Rapids" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 7:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!
&
+1, and I say that knowing that it means I have to help. I'm willing to
write the docs for whoever works on the code.
A gentle reminder on some of the posts in this thread. Please don't
respond with "I'd really like ." Respond with "I'm
willing to do the work for ." That's part of the poi
Steve Alexander wrote:
>
> Yeah... maybe we need a standard "Zope Expansion Kit" that is a cohesive
> package of products that aren't in the Zope core, but are officially
> sanctioned and versioned and released alongside versions of Zope.
I thought that's what the /Products directory in the stan
seb bacon wrote:
>
> I think the use cases driving synchronisation requirements are not yet
> sufficiently understood. Agreed, it's a feature that many people need,
> but I get the impression it would be premature to include ZSyncer as is
> in Zope without more detailed planning. On the other ha
> > I'd like to see the ZSyncer Product, or a variant thereof, included in
> > Zope by default. That is, I'd like "Synchronization", to a be a default
> > property of Zope objects, so that objects/content can be pushed and
> > pulled between two Zope installations.
>
> I would use ZCVSFolder or
> > Absolutely ... and I would also like to see Richards excellent Call
> > Profiler service become part of the core.
>
> I'm definitely putting the profiler into 2.6 - there's just an open question
> of where it gets put. The question was asked on zope-coders, and got no
> response. I figure
I'd like to see ZSQL methods altered so that bind variables could be used in
SQL queries.
This would improve SQL operations for at least Oracle, which is the one db
I know of that uses bind variables to speed it's querie-management.
This is filed as a bugreport in the collector previously but h
> I wholeheartedly agree that 2.6 needs to be significantly a community
> effort. While I know that many people are engaged in the Zope 3 effort,
> we also need to get some people engaged on defining and producing
> 2.6 in the interim. There is not much on the plan right now, so the
> possibilitie
Hi,
John Ziniti schrieb:
>
> > > Let's get a discussion
> >
> >> started to define 2.6
> >
>
> I'd like to see the ZSyncer Product, or a variant thereof, included in
> Zope by default. That is, I'd like "Synchronization", to a be a default
> property of Zope objects, so that objects/conten
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 15:17, Eric Roby wrote:
> > > > Let's get a discussion
> > > >
> > >> started to define 2.6
> >
> > I'd like to see the ZSyncer Product, or a variant thereof, included in
> > Zope by default. That is, I'd like "Synchronization", to a be a default
> > property of Zope objects,
> > > Let's get a discussion
> >
> >> started to define 2.6
> >
>
> I'd like to see the ZSyncer Product, or a variant thereof, included in
> Zope by default. That is, I'd like "Synchronization", to a be a default
> property of Zope objects, so that objects/content can be pushed and
> pulled
> > Let's get a discussion
>
>> started to define 2.6
>
I'd like to see the ZSyncer Product, or a variant thereof, included in
Zope by default. That is, I'd like "Synchronization", to a be a default
property of Zope objects, so that objects/content can be pushed and
pulled between two Zope i
2.6 planning - call for contributors!
> I've modified HTTPResponse and ZServer/HTTPResponse.py to allow for gzip
content
> encoding on a response-by-response basis. I'm mostly using this with
xml-rpc, but it
> could be generalized and combined with a gzipper- cache manager.
> I've modified HTTPResponse and ZServer/HTTPResponse.py to allow for gzip
content
> encoding on a response-by-response basis. I'm mostly using this with
xml-rpc, but it
> could be generalized and combined with a gzipper- cache manager.
I'd like this. It would help with the lack of transfer-enc
On Thursday 28 February 2002 04:03 pm, you wrote:
> Brian Lloyd wrote:
> > Let's get a discussion
> >
> > started to define 2.6.
>
> This isn't exciting by any means unless you're one of the people who
> package Zope up for distribution, or maybe you're one of the people who
> manage lots of litt
Brian Lloyd wrote:
> Let's get a discussion
> started to define 2.6.
This isn't exciting by any means unless you're one of the people who
package Zope up for distribution, or maybe you're one of the people who
manage lots of little Zopes on one system; but I'd like to revive the
"grand unifi
day, February 28, 2002 13:35
Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 planning - call for contributors!
> I went to http://dev.zope.org/Resources/zope_260_plan.html and logged in,
but couldn't
> see any way to contribute comments to this page. I could comment on major
projects,
&g
I went to http://dev.zope.org/Resources/zope_260_plan.html and logged in, but couldn't
see any way to contribute comments to this page. I could comment on major projects,
but none of them fit my objective.
--
I've modified HTTPResponse and ZServer/HTTPResponse.py to allow for gzip content
enc
56 matches
Mail list logo
