2009/2/25 Shane Hathaway :
> Hi all,
>
> I've put up a draft of a zope.pipeline proposal:
>
> http://wiki.zope.org/zope3/ZopePipeline
>
> The proposal is intended to explain my thoughts on the subject more
> thoroughly.
I like the idea, as it definetely cleans up request processing and
publication
Hi Shane,
> http://wiki.zope.org/zope3/ZopePipeline
Thanks for putting this up! In general, I think your goals are very
worthy. I hope we'll end up with more re-usable end/middleware that can
be used by others, including Zope 2 applications like Plone, as a result
of this. Unifying the Zope 2
Hi Shane
> Betreff: [Zope-dev] Zope.pipeline proposal
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've put up a draft of a zope.pipeline proposal:
>
> http://wiki.zope.org/zope3/ZopePipeline
>
> The proposal is intended to explain my thoughts on the
> subject more thoroughly.
Do you know something about the performan
Shane Hathaway wrote:
> I've put up a draft of a zope.pipeline proposal:
>
> http://wiki.zope.org/zope3/ZopePipeline
>
> The proposal is intended to explain my thoughts on the subject more
> thoroughly.
+1 for the project. I think this will make it easier to reason about
what goes on in Zope a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> http://wiki.zope.org/zope3/ZopePipeline
>
> Thanks for putting this up! In general, I think your goals are very
> worthy. I hope we'll end up with more re-usable end/middleware that can
> be used by others, including Zope 2
Dan Korostelev wrote:
> Also, how easy is to integrate existing non-zopeish WSGI middlewares
> into the zope.pipeline? Like some resource injectors or XHTML slimmers
> and so on. It would be really great to be able to do that with single
> ZCML directive.
You can do that with two ZCML directives.
2009/2/25 Martijn Faassen :
> One area that I'd like to see support for is some easy way to turn off
> security proxies. It's rumored there is such a way but with Grok, we
> ended up ripping them off repeatedly anyway. Am I right in that it
> should be possible to put a WSGI endware on top of this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Roger Ineichen wrote:
> Hi Shane
>
>> Betreff: [Zope-dev] Zope.pipeline proposal
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've put up a draft of a zope.pipeline proposal:
>>
>> http://wiki.zope.org/zope3/ZopePipeline
>>
>> The proposal is intended to explain my thoughts
Roger Ineichen wrote:
> Do you know something about the performance of WSGI?
>
> I whould be happy to see some perfomance tests comparing
> WSGI with other server concepts.
WSGI is extremely lightweight, so WSGI itself isn't going to affect
performance. The WSGI servers I know about are reasona
Shane Hathaway wrote:
> Roger Ineichen wrote:
>> Do you know something about the performance of WSGI?
>>
>> I whould be happy to see some perfomance tests comparing
>> WSGI with other server concepts.
>
> WSGI is extremely lightweight, so WSGI itself isn't going to affect
> performance. The WSGI
Shane Hathaway wrote:
> Dan Korostelev wrote:
>> Also, how easy is to integrate existing non-zopeish WSGI middlewares
>> into the zope.pipeline? Like some resource injectors or XHTML slimmers
>> and so on. It would be really great to be able to do that with single
>> ZCML directive.
>
> You can do
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tres Seaver wrote:
> Roger Ineichen wrote:
>> Hi Shane
>
>>> Betreff: [Zope-dev] Zope.pipeline proposal
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I've put up a draft of a zope.pipeline proposal:
>>>
>>> http://wiki.zope.org/zope3/ZopePipeline
>>>
>>> The proposal is in
Martin Aspeli wrote:
> I'm used to using Paste Deploy ini files to configure a WSGI pipeline.
> Is this simply an alternative to that? If so, do we really need our own
> alternative, or could we try to use the Paste Deploy stuff directly?
Yes, you can just use Paste Deploy instead of the ZCML-ba
Hey,
Tres Seaver wrote:
[snip]
> In general, if you need full-on backward compatibility with the existing
> behavior of Zope2 / Zope3 / Grok, switching to a paste-driven WSGI
> pipeline doesn't gain you much speed (but it is not a loss, either).
> If, for a given application, you can relax the BBB
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> What's the overhead of a WSGI middleware? Is the overhead cost in the
> same order of magnitude as a simple function call with a return value or
> is there something inherently more complex going on?
A WSGI middleware app is simply a callable thing that calls the next
a
Hey,
Shane Hathaway wrote:
> Martin Aspeli wrote:
[snip]
>> create_request -- should this maybe have some compatibility with WebOb
>> requests?
>
> I've looked at WebOb, and my impression is that Zope requests and WebOb
> requests serve completely different purposes. A Zope request is
> essen
Hi all
> Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] Zope.pipeline proposal
>
> Hey,
>
> Tres Seaver wrote:
> [snip]
> > In general, if you need full-on backward compatibility with the
> > existing behavior of Zope2 / Zope3 / Grok, switching to a
> paste-driven
> > WSGI pi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Roger Ineichen wrote:
> Hi all
>
>> Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] Zope.pipeline proposal
>>
>> Hey,
>>
>> Tres Seaver wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> In general, if you need full-on backward compatibility with
Hi Tres
> >> http://plope.com/whatsitdoing2
> >>
> >> This is why zope.pipeline is such an important effort to me.
> >> Not that it will immediately make things better, but it would
> >> hopefully open up a path to move the Zope Framework
> forward in this
> >> area.
> >
> > I absolutly agree
Shane Hathaway wrote:
> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> I'm used to using Paste Deploy ini files to configure a WSGI pipeline.
>> Is this simply an alternative to that? If so, do we really need our own
>> alternative, or could we try to use the Paste Deploy stuff directly?
>
> Yes, you can just use Past
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> Shane Hathaway wrote:
>> Roger Ineichen wrote:
>>> Do you know something about the performance of WSGI?
>>>
>>> I whould be happy to see some perfomance tests comparing
>>> WSGI with other server concepts.
>> WSGI is extremely lightweight, so WSGI itself isn't going to af
Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Shane Hathaway wrote:
>> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>>> clean_transaction -- is this not the same as repoze.tm2?
>> No. To mimic the current Zope publisher, we need to commit the
>> transaction shortly after the "call" application is finished, but then a
>> lot of things can sti
Roger Ineichen wrote:
> Hi Tres
>
http://plope.com/whatsitdoing2
This is why zope.pipeline is such an important effort to me.
Not that it will immediately make things better, but it would
hopefully open up a path to move the Zope Framework
>> forward in this
area.
Hi there,
One issue I have with using paste deploy's pipeline configuration for
"endware" is that such configuration sometimes really wants to be part
of a library. I.e. I don't want to configure a tower of endwares each
time I write an application, I want to reuse some premade configuration
t
Hi Chris
> Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] Zope.pipeline proposal
>
> Roger Ineichen wrote:
> > Hi Tres
> >
> >>>> http://plope.com/whatsitdoing2
> >>>>
> >>>> This is why zope.pipeline is such an important effort to me.
&g
Chris McDonough wrote:
[snip]
> While I think that would be a good thing, I do want to mention that it's not
> really the point of the "whatsitdoing" benchmark.
Right, agreed. I think it's more important to make the Zope Framework
more comprehensible than it is to improve its performance. Its
pe
26 matches
Mail list logo
