Adam Groszer wrote at 2006-11-17 13:13 +0100:
>What is the `good` behaviour regarding None values?
>Do we need to catalog them or skip them?
If you index them, you rely on a non garanteed implementation artefact:
Python explicitly does not garanteed that comparisons between
objects of differe
On Nov 17, 2006, at 1:46 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gary Poster wrote:
On Nov 17, 2006, at 10:23 AM, Adam Groszer wrote:
Hello,
Solutions:
a: No, do not keep None values in the catalog
the current implementation works like this
you are unabl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gary Poster wrote:
> On Nov 17, 2006, at 10:23 AM, Adam Groszer wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Solutions:
>>
>> a: No, do not keep None values in the catalog
>>the current implementation works like this
>>you are unable to ask the catalog for object
On Nov 17, 2006, at 11:44 AM, Christian Theune wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
Yeah, it makes me a little nervous too. I'm comfortable saying this
should go on the trunk, but I'd default to saying that it shouldn't
be backported, unless there's a groundswell of support.
Splitting up the patch int
Gary Poster wrote:
> Yeah, it makes me a little nervous too. I'm comfortable saying this
> should go on the trunk, but I'd default to saying that it shouldn't
> be backported, unless there's a groundswell of support.
Splitting up the patch into a bug fix and a feature doesn't make any
sense,
On Nov 17, 2006, at 11:38 AM, Christian Theune wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
On Nov 17, 2006, at 11:29 AM, Adam Groszer wrote:
I propose to remove the try/except.
Is that OK?
Yes, I think removing the bare try...except is definitely the right
thing to do. (Anyone care to disagree?)
Would t
Gary Poster wrote:
> On Nov 17, 2006, at 11:29 AM, Adam Groszer wrote:
>
>> Hello Gary,
>>
>> At the moment it is
>> try:
>> value = value()
>> except:
>> return None
>>
>> So that will eat the exception without any signs.
>> That makes me also glum when I have to dig deep to discover th
On Nov 17, 2006, at 11:29 AM, Adam Groszer wrote:
Hello Gary,
At the moment it is
try:
value = value()
except:
return None
So that will eat the exception without any signs.
That makes me also glum when I have to dig deep to discover that
something ate an exception.
I propose to remov
Hello Gary,
At the moment it is
try:
value = value()
except:
return None
So that will eat the exception without any signs.
That makes me also glum when I have to dig deep to discover that
something ate an exception.
I propose to remove the try/except.
Is that OK?
Friday, November 17, 20
Gary Poster wrote:
> On Nov 17, 2006, at 11:13 AM, Adam Groszer wrote:
>>
>> Two more questions remain open, but I think they are easy to answer.
>>
>> In case the field is callable but the method to be called is None
>
> Yes, remove from index.
Same behaviour as for a None value, so remove from
On Nov 17, 2006, at 11:13 AM, Adam Groszer wrote:
Hello,
Two more questions remain open, but I think they are easy to answer.
In case the field is callable but the method to be called is None
Yes, remove from index.
OR
The method is not None but raises an exception while getting the value
Hello,
Two more questions remain open, but I think they are easy to answer.
In case the field is callable but the method to be called is None
OR
The method is not None but raises an exception while getting the value
In both cases the previous value should be removed from the index?
I think yes.
Hello Gary,
OK, my mistake.
Then I'll do like a).
Friday, November 17, 2006, 4:46:09 PM, you wrote:
GP> On Nov 17, 2006, at 10:23 AM, Adam Groszer wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Solutions:
>>
>> a: No, do not keep None values in the catalog
>>the current implementation works like this
>>you are
Hi,
Adam Groszer wrote:
> Hello Christian,
>
> Meanwhile Manfred dropped me an answer:
>
>> From my perspective there is now way for implementing an compression
>> inside the widget because it is built in Flash / Actionscript and for
>> security issues, you are not allowed to access the file
On Nov 17, 2006, at 10:46 AM, Gary Poster wrote:
This is a less efficient approach than the zc.catalog approach.
Clarification:
Less efficient from a data storage perspective. From a search
perspective, it is more efficient.
Gary
___
Zope3-de
Hello Christian,
Meanwhile Manfred dropped me an answer:
> From my perspective there is now way for implementing an compression
> inside the widget because it is built in Flash / Actionscript and for
> security issues, you are not allowed to access the file on the
> filesystem. You only get
On Nov 17, 2006, at 10:23 AM, Adam Groszer wrote:
Hello,
Solutions:
a: No, do not keep None values in the catalog
the current implementation works like this
you are unable to ask the catalog for objects having None
properties
b: Yes, keep None values in the catalog
you can ask the
Hello,
Solutions:
a: No, do not keep None values in the catalog
the current implementation works like this
you are unable to ask the catalog for objects having None
properties
b: Yes, keep None values in the catalog
you can ask the catalog for objects having None properties
c: Let's k
On Nov 17, 2006, at 7:22 AM, Christian Theune wrote:
Hi,
Adam Groszer wrote:
Hello Christian,
Yep, but...
What is the `good` behaviour regarding None values?
Do we need to catalog them or skip them?
Example:
If the object is (user.title == None)
Shall it be kept in the catalog or not?
In ca
Hello Christian,
Yep, I also vote for indexing None.
Seems like somebody wanted to avoid the `None object is not callable`
exception.
Friday, November 17, 2006, 1:22:42 PM, you wrote:
> Hi,
> Adam Groszer wrote:
>> Hello Christian,
>>
>> Yep, but...
>> What is the `good` behaviour regarding No
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Withers wrote:
> Tres Seaver wrote:
>> We were discussion a (notional) "value adapter", whose factory would
>> have the contract of returning an object of a specific concrete type,
>> rather than on implementing an interface.
>
> Right, but the
Here is the traceback:
Error in test test_withoutintids (myproduct.ftests.test_wf.WorkflowTestCase)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/lib/python2.4/unittest.py", line 260, in run
testMethod()
File "/mnt/zope/ldev/var/zope/lib/python/myproduct/ftests.py", line
20, in test_without
Chris Withers wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
Can a named adapter find out the name it was registered with during
the adaptation process?
Nope.
I can see why it's that way, but it seems a shame and maybe even an
oversight :-/
What do you suggest I do when the
Tom Gross wrote:
I have a site with some utilities. One is a
zope.app.intid.UniqueIdUtility, which seems to be the cause of the
problem (see the test). A NotYet-Exception is raised, when I try to add
a zope.app.workflow.StatefulProcessDefinition-object to the container
with the utilities. I
Chris Withers wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
browser:view
Note: browser:view always creates new classes on the fly.
evil
browser:page
Registers an adapter where the second adapted object defaults to
IBrowserDefaltLayer. Always creates a new class on the fly and
mixes in func
Hi,
Adam Groszer wrote:
> Hello Christian,
>
> Yep, but...
> What is the `good` behaviour regarding None values?
> Do we need to catalog them or skip them?
>
> Example:
> If the object is (user.title == None)
> Shall it be kept in the catalog or not?
> In case it is not in the catalog I won't be
Hello Christian,
Yep, but...
What is the `good` behaviour regarding None values?
Do we need to catalog them or skip them?
Example:
If the object is (user.title == None)
Shall it be kept in the catalog or not?
In case it is not in the catalog I won't be able to search for users
with no title. Sugg
Hi,
Adam Groszer wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm a little bit offtopic with my question here.
>
> We had here the idea to implement a compression algorhitm in the above
> package to save some precious upload bandwith.
>
> I'm not a flash professional, google did not spit out straightforward
> solutions
Hi Adam,
Adam Groszer wrote:
> Working on them.
That's great! I'd be happy to see your checkins then. It would be good
if you took the time to backport this to 3.3 and 3.2 branches.
Christian
--
gocept gmbh & co. kg - forsterstraße 29 - 06112 halle/saale - germany
www.gocept.com - [EMAIL PROTE
Hello Christian,
Working on them.
Friday, November 17, 2006, 12:39:37 PM, you wrote:
> Got any tests?
--
Best regards,
Adammailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Quote of the day:
He became what we are that He might make us what He is.
- Athanasius (speaking of Jesus of N
Hi,
Adam Groszer wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I found that z.a.catalog, AttributeIndex fails to remove the previous
> value/object from the index IF the new value is None.
>
> The next thing is if the index contains the object, but the value
> somehow dropped out of the forward index, the unindex breaks.
Hello,
I found that z.a.catalog, AttributeIndex fails to remove the previous
value/object from the index IF the new value is None.
The next thing is if the index contains the object, but the value
somehow dropped out of the forward index, the unindex breaks.
Anybody noticed these already?
I have
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
browser:view
Note: browser:view always creates new classes on the fly.
evil
browser:page
Registers an adapter where the second adapted object defaults to
IBrowserDefaltLayer. Always creates a new class on the fly and
mixes in functionality that makes t
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
Can a named adapter find out the name it was registered with during
the adaptation process?
Nope.
I can see why it's that way, but it seems a shame and maybe even an
oversight :-/
What do you suggest I do when the adapter needs to know
Dieter Maurer wrote:
As Chris example demonstrates, it would have been better
to call "IZopeDublinCore(myobj)" the "IZopeDublinCore"
adaptation of "myobj".
Agreed, and would have saved me a lot of confusion.
cheers,
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
Tres Seaver wrote:
We were discussion a (notional) "value adapter", whose factory would
have the contract of returning an object of a specific concrete type,
rather than on implementing an interface.
Right, but the CA supports the use of classes instead of interfaces and
that works just fine h
Hi Philipp,
I have a site with some utilities. One is a
zope.app.intid.UniqueIdUtility, which seems to be the cause of the
problem (see the test). A NotYet-Exception is raised, when I try to add
a zope.app.workflow.StatefulProcessDefinition-object to the container
with the utilities. I can
37 matches
Mail list logo
