Shane Hathaway wrote:
Yes, RDBMS would become a first-class citizen. New users would be able
to write some page templates and SQL scripts on the filesystem and have
them work with no extra effort.
Great, you've just re-invented LAMP, but without the years of testing to
make it stable :-/
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Do you mean _just_ an RDBMS if you so desire? We don't want to force
people to use an ORM either.
I meant whatever else anyone wants to use ;-)
Flat files are everybody's land.
That doesn't mean they're a good idea...
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope
Hi all,
looking for your comments at
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReducingTheAmountOfZCMLDirectives :)
This is a formal follow-up on my blog post on ZCML a while back
(http://www.z3lab.org/sections/blogs/philipp-weitershausen/2005_12_14_zcml-needs-to-do-less).
I expect there will be more proposals
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Hi all,
looking for your comments at
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReducingTheAmountOfZCMLDirectives :)
+1 for deprecation of the proposed directives.
Also +1 to get rid of 'rdb:gadflyRoot'. I think very few people use
'zope.app.rdb.gadfly' at all since even for
Hi Jean-Marc!
I agree that a view should not be able to modify the data model. But I
think tal:define is a must have :)
For example: I need tal:define to define names for generic macros:
ul tal:define=list main_navigation
li metal:use-macro=macros/li_repeat/
/ul
The 'li_repeat' macro
Tonico Strasser wrote:
Hi Jean-Marc!
I agree that a view should not be able to modify the data model. But I
think tal:define is a must have :)
For example: I need tal:define to define names for generic macros:
ul tal:define=list main_navigation
li metal:use-macro=macros/li_repeat/
/ul
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
[snip description of cross-template communication]
that's an anti-pattern
Agreed.
--
Benji York
Senior Software Engineer
Zope Corporation
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub:
Yet again looking for comments, this time at:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/OneNamespaceForZCML.
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
On 2/13/06, Philipp von Weitershausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sometimes not only using more lines, sometimes only using 2 or 3 more lines.
I'd say whoever wants to save 2 or 3 lines at the expense of indirection is
misguided.
I don't think it's about saving lines, but about saving headaches.
Tonico Strasser wrote:
(Again with the right quote, sorry.)
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
That's exactly what I'm saying: if templates did not try to create
their own data layer, the 'li_repeat' macro could get the data from
the model (instead it has to rely on cross-template communication)
On 2/13/06, Philipp von Weitershausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yet again looking for comments, this time at:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/OneNamespaceForZCML.
What happens if you want to add your own statements? Should you still
do that in your own namespace? If not, how are we going to make sure
On Monday 13 February 2006 06:08, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
looking for your comments at
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReducingTheAmountOfZCMLDirectives :)
I am +1 for the proposed directives, in general. I am waiting for a proposal
on the Potential follow-ups though.
P.S: Please use
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
tal:define is used here to pass parameters to the macro. In ZPT this
is done implicitly, which is why macros specify a list a variables that
must be defined.
In other language this is done explictly. (cf. XSLT xsl:with-param ...)
If it was done explicitly in ZPT it
Lennart Regebro wrote:
I don't think it's about saving lines, but about saving headaches. ;-)
Having to remember how all of the mentioned directives work *does* give me a
headache. I actually remember quite well how the utility and interface
directives work and they are the replacement for most
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Monday 13 February 2006 06:08, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
looking for your comments at
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReducingTheAmountOfZCMLDirectives :)
I am +1 for the proposed directives, in general.
Cool.
I am waiting for a proposal on the Potential
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 2/13/06, Philipp von Weitershausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yet again looking for comments, this time at:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/OneNamespaceForZCML.
What happens if you want to add your own statements? Should you still
do that in your own namespace?
No. But I
On Saturday 11 February 2006 16:50, Jim Fulton wrote:
- Application developers need to build an application. They will
generally want fairly tight control over what goes into the
application. For them, it's valuable to say in an explicit
way what they want.
- If the application is
Hi Philipp,
On Monday 13 February 2006 11:08, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
looking for your comments at
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReducingTheAmountOfZCMLDirectives :)
This is a formal follow-up on my blog post on ZCML a while back
Stephan Richter wrote:
- You do not argue how the decision-making process is highly inconsistent.
Fair enough. I will update the proposal later. Supper first :).
- I do not understand what's so bad about coming up with your 3rd-party ZCML
directives. They are extremely easy to write and use.
On 2/13/06, Philipp von Weitershausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What internals? That a factory is a utility?
What interfaces to use in which case, and how they all map together.
Adding a page with browser:page is trivial. I don't really care that
you can separately define up a whole host of
Benji York wrote:
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
[snip description of cross-template communication]
that's an anti-pattern
Agreed.
Although you told me that's an anti-pattern, I'll have to use it until I
find a better pattern. I can't live without the benefit of reusing macros.
Tonico
Tonico Strasser wrote:
Although you told me that's an anti-pattern, I'll have to use it until I
find a better pattern.
This is true. :)
I can't live without the benefit of reusing macros.
Agreed. I just hope that someone will do the work necessary to create a
better way of doing so.
--
On 2/13/06, Tonico Strasser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looking forward to see explicit ZPTs soon :)
Me too. I'd also like the macros to be called rather than expanded, so
that any error messages report the error in the macro rather than in
an expanded main template. This should be possible if we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Monday 13 February 2006 08:36, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
As we have learned that we can reduce nearly all component tasks to
adapters and utilities, many tasks revolving around registration and
configuration of
Stephan Richter wrote:
As we have learned that we can reduce nearly all component tasks to
adapters and utilities, many tasks revolving around registration and
configuration of policy also only involve adapters and utilities. By using
those elementary directives we can stimulate the learning
On Feb 13, 2006, at 10:05 AM, Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Monday 13 February 2006 08:36, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
[...]
+1 to Stephan's comment, Tres' comment, and Tres' use of the word
ukase (which I had to look up).
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 2/13/06, Tonico Strasser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looking forward to see explicit ZPTs soon :)
Me too. I'd also like the macros to be called rather than expanded, so
that any error messages report the error in the
On Feb 11, 2006, at 9:24 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 10:39:52 -, Lennart Regebro
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
There are methods for neatly deprecating things like this, and they
have been employed consitently in Zope 3, and quite consistetly in
later versions of
On Monday 13 February 2006 10:05, Tres Seaver wrote:
- I don't want to encourage people to do configuration in Python:
we have moved away from that *on purpose* in Zope, and I don't see
a reason to go back. Directives which make it possible to change
policy decisions without
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 2/13/06, Tonico Strasser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looking forward to see explicit ZPTs soon :)
Me too. I'd also like the macros to be called rather than expanded, so
that any error messages report
Brian Sutherland wrote:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 11:54:18AM +0100, Jan-Wijbrand Kolman wrote:
I add this implementation of isConnected to the mysqldbda in my setup
(Zope-2.9 + Five + sqlos, mysql 4.1.12) too, and things *seem* to have
improved. But not completely, every now and then I get the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tonico Strasser wrote:
I'm interested in your opinion about parameters for macros.
Do you think this is explicit enough?:
ul tal:define=list main_navigation
li metal:use-macro=macros/li_repeat/
/ul
Or do you think explicit parameters
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
- The opposition to namespace declarations is whiny, as they are the
standard way to make XML extensible. Unless we are going to quit
using XML, outlawing namespaces would be equivalent to
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tonico Strasser wrote:
I'm interested in your opinion about parameters for macros.
Do you think this is explicit enough?:
ul tal:define=list main_navigation
li metal:use-macro=macros/li_repeat/
/ul
Or do you think
Tres Seaver wrote:
- The opposition to namespace declarations is whiny, as they are the
standard way to make XML extensible. Unless we are going to quit
using XML, outlawing namespaces would be equivalent to saying, you
may not extend ZCML; I don't think we are smart enough to make that
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Yet again looking for comments, this time at:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/OneNamespaceForZCML.
-1.
Prefixing 'browser' directives in the tag names to me is a big warning
bell that you really do want to use different namespaces. Another
example of the namespace
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 2/13/06, Philipp von Weitershausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yet again looking for comments, this time at:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/OneNamespaceForZCML.
What happens if you want to add your own statements? Should you still
do that
Here's another idea that occurred to me recently. I suspect this one
needs no vote, but perhaps it should be done sooner than other ideas
like the filesystem-based web root.
I want a way to inspect all of the indirections chosen in the course of
a web request or any other publishing
Hey,
Good comments, Tres, thanks.
Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
As we have learned that we can reduce nearly all component tasks to
adapters and utilities, many tasks revolving around registration and
configuration of policy also only involve adapters and utilities. By using
those elementary
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 2/13/06, Philipp von Weitershausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
looking for your comments at
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReducingTheAmountOfZCMLDirectives :)
This is a formal follow-up on my blog post on ZCML a while back
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
Uhm. -1, actually. I think getting things out of ZCML is a good idea,
but I think this shoots slightly beside the goal. This proposal aims
mostly at getting rid of statements that can be done with other
statetements, but using more lines.
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
I've being working on integrating Balazs Ree's CTAL interpreter recently
(added tests, fixes, etc.). CTAL is the equivalent of TAL but for
javascript.
I just googled around for this, and couldn't find it, but I'm intrigued.
Any link?
A few years ago on a whim I
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
I've being working on integrating Balazs Ree's CTAL interpreter
recently (added tests, fixes, etc.). CTAL is the equivalent of TAL
but for javascript.
I just googled around for this, and couldn't find it, but I'm
intrigued. Any link?
A
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope3 trunk 2.4 Windows 2000
zc-bbwin3.
Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/
Build Reason: changes
Build Source Stamp: 3063
Blamelist: niemeyer
BUILD FAILED: failed failed slave lost
sincerely,
-The Buildbot
Martijn Faassen faassen at infrae.com writes:
What happens if you want to add your own statements? Should you still
do that in your own namespace?
No. But I don't think that it'll be much of a problem. I expect that not a
lot
of 3rd party packages will need their own set of ZCML
Philipp von Weitershausen philipp at weitershausen.de writes:
The problem is uncontrolled ZCML directive proliferation. It's bad enough
that you have to familiarize yourself with a new API when dealing with a 3rd
party Zope package. But having to learn a new set of ZCML directives?!? I
think
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:59:32 +0100 Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
I've being working on integrating Balazs Ree's CTAL interpreter recently
(added tests, fixes, etc.). CTAL is the equivalent of TAL but for
javascript.
I just googled around for this, and couldn't find it,
Philipp von Weitershausen philipp at weitershausen.de writes:
I'm not arguing (here) against refactoring the namespaces in which
core directives are declared. I'm arguing against the idea that
namespaces are bad in general.
I'm not arguing that either. I'm just saying that one
On Monday 13 February 2006 12:18, Shane Hathaway wrote:
Thoughts? Will it work? Should it be a priority?
I like the idea a lot and you could reuse quiet a bit of apidoc code to
produce some nice output.
But my main question is: How will you be able to do this? :-) I could see a
special hook
Gary Poster gary at zope.com writes:
On Feb 13, 2006, at 10:05 AM, Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Monday 13 February 2006 08:36, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
[...]
+1 to Stephan's comment, Tres' comment, and
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Monday 13 February 2006 12:18, Shane Hathaway wrote:
Thoughts? Will it work? Should it be a priority?
I like the idea a lot and you could reuse quiet a bit of apidoc code to
produce some nice output.
But my main question is: How will you be able to do this?
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:18:24AM -0700, Shane Hathaway wrote:
I want a way to inspect all of the indirections chosen in the course of
a web request or any other publishing operation. After executing a web
request, Zope will report all of the points where it made a decision
using the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
snip
I'm not arguing (here) against refactoring the namespaces in which
core directives are declared. I'm arguing against the idea that
namespaces are bad in general.
I'm not arguing that
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 07:51:34 -, Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Scripts and RBDMS are the fast food of the web development world, not
the salad. Looks nice, tastes great, eventually leaves you fat and
unhealthy. ZODB and maybe an ORM is the greens for me, it might not be
to
On 2/13/06, Sidnei da Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Someone argued in the python-brasil list that let's do more of those
actually refers to 'one honking great idea', thus meaning let's do
more of those great ideas (like namespaces).
This is the first time I've heard that interpretation.
Now
On Monday 13 February 2006 15:21, Shane Hathaway wrote:
But my main question is: How will you be able to do this? :-) I could see
a special hook into the adapter lookup. But then you would just get every
adapter lookup sorted chronically. Will that be helpful? I think we would
have to
Martijn Faassen wrote:
I would like to highlight Lennart's point. We need to be very careful
here. We would only have an illusion of improvement if we'd end up with
less directives but more long dotted names into Python packages. I'd
argue that this might make ZCML *harder* to understand, not
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
Uhm. -1, actually. I think getting things out of ZCML is a good idea,
but I think this shoots slightly beside the goal. This proposal aims
mostly at getting rid of statements that can be done with other
Quick in-and-out from a lurker: yesterday as I was learning how to use
Five with Plone, I thought to myself, wouldn't it be cool if there
were two directives, cmf:installable and cmf:registerContentClass?
This is from someone who's totally naive about zcml. Was this evil on
my part? Because the
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Prefixing 'browser' directives in the tag names to me is a big warning
bell that you really do want to use different namespaces. Another
example of the namespace mechanism working is that some people are using
it in their projects, adding namespaces specific to their
Martijn Faassen wrote:
No. But I don't think that it'll be much of a problem. I expect that not a
lot of 3rd party packages will need their own set of ZCML directives.
Currently I know of five and union.cms doing it. I'm certainly
considering doing so for Silva. Then there's the example of
Martijn Faassen wrote:
I don't see the problem with learning new ZCML directives when I'm
learning a new package. I can see why you'd like to reduce the
occurence, and I think sometimes configuring things in ZCML is actually
doing it in the wrong place, as information needs to be persistent
Martijn Faassen wrote:
I want to evolve ZCML as it is right now, this might mean removing
directives, changing directives, consolidating directives, adding
directives, removing some namespaces, consolidating some namespaces,
even adding some namespaces.
Fair enough. I'm already looking
Hello,
Im new here.. almost certainly these comments are off-base then
again, sometimes an idea from outside can be helpful. So heres
a crazy thought before I go to bed.
I wonder if the configuration done by zcml
might not be better if it resided inside a ZODB, and was manipulable
at
Martin,
Here here! I'm just learning to cross the gap starting from the RDBMS
side. Just our initial deployment will have a DB growing by about 30K
numbers per day, day in and day out. There are various workflows that
are driven by this data. The parts of these that need people are now
supposed
66 matches
Mail list logo
