Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
...
Then this and the __component_adapts__ hack should be enough to make
it work (still an unpleasant hack, that).
Huh? Use adapter.
class FactoryFactory:
def __init__(self):
# initialize a new factory
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 3/10/06, Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For instance, one that looks like this:
zope:annotation for=IBar factory=Foo /
That doesn't look like configuration.
What does it look like to you?
If hooking up adapters is considered to be configuration, why
Benji York wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
A second issue seems to me a bug in the javascript. When I use
StandaloneSortFormatter I can click on the title of a column to sort
to see a sorted view. This works wonderfully well. Unfortunately the
javascript is a bit simplistic
Hi there,
In this mail I'd like to make explicit some competing design influences
on ZCML.
The first interpretation of what ZCML is:
ZCML is a configuration language that provides abstract directives for
configuring Zope applications. If we're setting up a page, we use the
page directive.
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 3/10/06, Philipp von Weitershausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When I first saw constructs like this (using @apply), I was immediately
repelled and came up with this:
http://codespeak.net/svn/user/philikon/rwproperty/.
Yeah, that´s much better and is how I would have
Hi there,
I notice a pattern in code that uses annotations that looks like this:
class Foo(Persistent, Contained):
implements(interfaces.IFoo)
def getFoo(context):
annotations = IAnnotations(context)
try:
return annotations[FOO_KEY]
except KeyError:
foo = Foo()
Hi there,
I've just been playing a bit with zc.table. This is very exciting code
that could make a lot of custom code go away. Way cool!
(and zc.resourcelibrary is also nice!). If I knew the individual
developers I could give them my personal thanks. :)
I ran into some issues and I figured I
Paul Winkler wrote:
[snip]
I'm hoping to see a similarly interactive, yet long-term-sane,
working style evolve for in zope 3. Maybe we'll get there
with Persisent Modules and fssync.
This is an issue that's important to me, and to Jim. We had a discussion
about all of this in various
Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]
I wasn't trying to define app server. I was describing the Zope app
server.
As long as you realize you do risk confusion even by saying 'Zope app
server'. To me, Zope 3 is an app server, so when you say 'the Zope app
server' will include its functionalities too.
Terry Hancock wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:41:08 +0100
Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you please stop using a new name for Zope 3 or the
zope package? You can explain this perfectly well using
the existing, well established names.
I strongly disagree with this sentiment
Martin Aspeli wrote:
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 11:49:31 -, Lennart Regebro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This should be Zope3 as it is now. A couple of things can go away.
Maybe the rotterdam skin, I don't know. Definitely the default Folder
objects and such. People, especially Zope2 people, think
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
Sounds like the original vision of Zope 3 without the X. I thought we
never got around to developing this stuff the last time.
Actually, no. We originally said that we would provide a transition
path. I said over and over
Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]
I think that having one name for two radically different, though related,
things is very confusing. There are really
2 main technologies that people care about:
1. The Zope app server. This is characterized by things like an object
file system, through-the-web
Hi there,
I've been thinking a lot about the various things said in the vision
discussion. Lots of people said things I agree with, but other things
were said that make me worry a lot (losing brand-identity and useful
names), and so on. Here I sketch out some of my thoughts.
Reading back
Jim Fulton wrote:
I'd like to get feedback on two possible visions for the future of
Zope 2 and Zope 3.
1) Our current vision (AFAIK) is that Zope 3 will eventually
replace Zope 2
[snip]
2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
[snip]
Thoughts?
My initial reaction is:
Max M wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
Zope 2 is complicated! It has too many layers of everything.
The reason for Zope 3 is to make it simpler for developers.
Therefore I believe that any succesfull strategy would require Zope 3 to
be usable
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
[snip]
I would vote for spelling out Zed (which would also be a little easier
to google but might create trademark problems). The namespace package
could either be 'z' or 'zed'.
Then again, I really should take Jim's side and stay out of naming
decisions.
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 12:31:33AM +0100, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
I will also note that just because Zope 2 won't die, it doesn't mean we
shouldn't clean it up. Eventually, Zope should mostly be reusing things
from Zed.
+sys.maxint
I think this will be the way
Hey,
I have another comment about Zope 5, sparked by something Jeff Shell wrote.
Currently we have a clear path to evolution. Zope 3 evolves at its pace,
and Zope 2 evolves mostly by catching up with Zope 3, replacing more and
more bits with Zope 3 bits, which often takes considerable
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
I don't see how we need a new vision. This has been the vision
(evolution, not revolution) that I've been carrying out with Five for
the last few years and thanks to a lot of contributions by a large range
of developers, we've been
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
1) Our current vision (AFAIK) is that Zope 3 will eventually
replace Zope 2
2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
As you probably know already, I am -1 on the second proposal, since it will
disallow us to finally get
Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]
I see Zope 5 being a combination of Zope 2 and Zope 3, keeping
the best of both.
I think we already have Zope 5, and it's called Zope 2.9.
Perhaps I'm wrong. If so, how does Zope 5 differ from Zope 2.9?
Regards,
Martijn
Tres Seaver wrote:
[snip]
In this vision, the Zope 3 project should stay where it is and push
things forward. That doesn't mean Five should be ignored by Zope 3
developers, but it should be compartmentalized in people's minds. Zope 3
does innovation, Five does integration, and then the big
Gary Poster wrote:
[snip]
On Feb 28, 2006, at 10:06 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
I think focusing on one app server and a dedicated set of libraries
would be a good alternative to two concurring app servers.
...if the single app server is based on acquisition, __bobo_traverse__
and
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
I see Zope 5 being a combination of Zope 2 and Zope 3, keeping
the best of both.
I think we already have Zope 5, and it's called Zope 2.9.
I'd rather say it's called Zope 2.15 or something :).
Seriously, we are developing
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 17:29 +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]
I see Zope 5 being a combination of Zope 2 and Zope 3, keeping
the best of both.
I think we already have Zope 5, and it's called Zope 2.9.
Perhaps I'm wrong. If so, how does Zope 5
Lennart Regebro wrote:
[snip]
tests (in doctest format)
This seems like a very random requirement for me. I'd like to see
tests that can be run with the standard test-runner, otherwise I don't
see a reason to restrict it. I find doctest greating for testing docs,
and testing longer use cases.
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
It had unit tests, and the regex stuff that I was referring to may be
interesting - it ports the regexes from Zope's TALES to Javascript so
that the parsing of tales expressions works the same.
This is the module that has the regex
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
Moreover, sometimes a package introduces new ways to configure
components. Five does so, for instance, and Silva will too eventually.
I would really like to hear what kind of directives you imagine for Silva here
(and what you
Balazs Ree wrote:
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
Tonico Strasser wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
[snip]
See, now I even explained this to a template programmer, though I
don't think he'd care.
Maybe I mean something different. I just want a folder in which I can
drop all the files I want to customize (I love to customize),
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
* a way to register an XSLT renderer.
* registering XML importers and exporters.
These two immediately triggered adapter in my mind :).
XSLT renderer may be a view, that's how we use them now. I think it's a
candidate
Balazs Ree wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:41:36 +0100 Martijn Faassen wrote:
Are you interested in recovering some of there Zope TAL based regex stuff
from Sapling? I'd be happy to merge it in. ctal doesn't appear to have
this yet.
I must have a look, of course any enhancement would
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
Balazs Ree wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:41:36 +0100 Martijn Faassen wrote:
Are you interested in recovering some of there Zope TAL based
regex stuff from Sapling? I'd be happy to merge it in. ctal
doesn't appear to have this yet.
I must have a look, of course
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
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
Gary Poster wrote:
[snip]
You say this in your other message:
Somehow people don't seem to be discussing other activities much in the
recent threads, such as the writing intro text, of tutorials, designing
and presenting screencasts, gathering links and other information.
Seems like
Alexander Limi wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 00:32:52 -0800, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Like it or not, Zope (2) seems to have a lot of stigma out there; Zope
3 has been around a while. In actual fact, for a while I thought Zope
3.x was still just unfinished vapourware, waiting for
Hey,
No, the marketing talk should stay wherever it is. Only the people who
want to fix the marketing situation by working on building a better
zope.org should go to zope-web.
If you want to make sure that the new zope.org is going to work with
your marketing suggestions, you'd better help
Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
I'm not sure shuffling the hype and Zope 3 marketing conversations to
zope-web is a good idea. I'm not trying to fix zope.org (eek), and
I'm not trying to improve the Zope 2 image (though that would be nice
too). I, and I think others, are
Gary Poster wrote:
[snip]
I think the split-up contest--response 2--that Joel Moxley proposed on
the list and others proposed privately to me sounds good.
I'm not really thrilled about that idea. Marketing needs to be a unified
message, and if you split it up you'll likely end up with a
Gary Poster wrote:
[snip a few things that we think would be nice and useful for the packages]
Sure. I'd love to. I'm happy if I at least get the stuff open-
sourced, though. Life is full of compromises.
I understand the spirit in which these were donated to the community,
and it's
Hi there,
Just to drop a note that I think a discussion about a potential brand
name for Zope 3 is far less important than actually fixing our website
and presenting Zope 3 (and Zope 2 for that matter) in a better way.
Perhaps we can better redirect our energies to that than to have long
Hi there,
Gary Poster wrote:
[competition]
+1. I think the requirement to have enough people submitting is very
important, though. No competition anounced unless we get some idea that
we'll actually have enough competitors, otherwise we end up looking
silly (what happened to the Zope
Martin Aspeli (sent by Nabble.com) wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
If we do manage to build a new website and are a good way done with
it, *then* is the time to discuss possible branding options.
... except if that website is to incorporate a given brand and have a
big launch. :)
Which
Max M wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Alternatively, we could use our energy to actually work together on a
new website instead of competing. There's a zope-web mailing list,
after all, so go and talk there. This would have my preference.
If you want to fix the Zope 2 website at the same time
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Yes. Rest assured my ambition is to keep ambitions as low as possible.
:) Otherwise nothing will happen.
The front page of Zope.org doesn't show the activity around Z3 at all.
That wouln't cost anything to start to add a few z3 links in Zope Exits
Jim Fulton wrote:
A while ago, we had some discussion on when to make releases and
how long to support deprecated features. The discussion has died down
so I'll summarize what I think the conclusions were:
- We'll move releases up one month to may and November from June and
December. This
Chris McDonough wrote:
BTW, how impending is impending? Days, weeks, months? Anybody know?
On Feb 6, 2006, at 8:40 AM, Benji York wrote:
My first thought is to consider how the impending charter of the Zope
Foundation influences things.
Good question. My response to this would be two
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 02 February 2006 11:50, Martijn Faassen wrote:
or this content object (that is a site), when it's installed into the
ZODB (like a CMFSite or a Silva Root), please also install the following
local utilities (catalog, intid utility, etc).
I have already
Adam Groszer wrote:
Hello,
I had some time to finalize the widgets overview.
You can download it from here in various formats:
http://www.zope.org/Members/adamg/widget
Wow, thanks, this looks really cool!
Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope3-dev mailing
Jim Fulton wrote:
I've posted a proposal to simplify local component management at:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/LocalComponentManagementSimplification
Comments and questions are welcome.
I like the proposal.
I'm trying to figure out what this means exactly:
Registries may place
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote at 2006-1-26 10:16 -0500:
but ZCML meta directives and
schemas are so easy to use.
I do not yet know ZCML...
In my experience it is indeed fairly easy to extend ZCML; it's a pretty
nice system that way.
When I have read your book I was scared
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alexander Limi wrote:
[snip]
Zope tells you where to connect, but way too early in the output.
Let's fix the spew in PTS instead (which should be at BLATHER or DEBUG
level).
Replacing it with Five/Zope 3 i18n is one way to
Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]
I think that the way the server and app are integrated needs to be
rethought.
I think we need to look at how to leverage Paste Deploy in Zope.
I hate to mention this with all of the discussion about ZConfig, but
we should probably consider using PasteDeploy as an
Andrew Sawyers wrote:
1.
On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 18:29 +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
And the intended audience of ZCML is a very different audience -
developers versus sysadmins.
I'd have to say, I belived quite the opposite. There are specific
references to Admins being part
Jim Fulton wrote:
See:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ZConfigAndOtherFormatsForZCML
Comments and volunteers welcome.
The use case of experimenting with different formats could also be
approached using a pre-processor approach for ZCML. That ZCML is an XML
dialect makes such a thing easier,
Martin Aspeli wrote:
[snip]
Also, I assume there's a DTD or XML Schema for the ZCML syntax, which would let
such tools validate and auto-complete ZCML syntax - a valuable way to save time
if you're not intimately familiar with the syntax.
I've done this in the past. A long time ago I created
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
I'd be in favour of switching zope.conf to an XML-based format as
well, personally.
That would be a separate proposal. It's not within the bounds of the
proposal under discussion.
No, I think the proposal under discussion has implications and
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
See:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ZConfigAndOtherFormatsForZCML
Comments and volunteers welcome.
I like this proposal. It is likely to reduce the total amount of code.
However, I want to be sure that consolidating engines is the real focus
of the
Jim Fulton wrote:
See:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ZConfigAndOtherFormatsForZCML
Comments and volunteers welcome.
After thinking about it for a little bit, -1.
Firstly, I'm interested in experimenting with alternative syntaxes for
ZCML. I'm however not convinced that the proposal is a
Fred Drake wrote:
On 1/23/06, Sidnei da Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suspect ZConfig was designed after the apache config format. I also
suspect you haven't configured much Apache yourself.
Indeed, Apache configuration files were a major influence, and the
intended audience is
Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]
Huh? Geez, my proposal must have been really unclear. I'm not proposing
replacing ZCML files with ZConfig files. I'm proposing leveraging the ZCML
engine and especially the system for extensibility for handling ZConfig
files
Yeah, I read some of the thread, which
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 23. Januar 2006 18:29:18 +0100 Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
And the intended audience of ZCML is a very different audience -
developers versus sysadmins.
This separation is artificial. I've never seen a single Zope
installation where a system
Jim Fulton wrote:
One issue though is that I want to replace ZConfig with a ZConfig
format for zcml. (This would include making ZCML extensible to accept
any other format.) The user experience would be the same, but
extending it would be a lot easier than extensing ZConfig. I plan to
make a
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Wednesday 18 January 2006 19:09, Jim Fulton wrote:
You know my position concerning the repository and the release; I'd
prefer them to be kept as similar as possible to simplify the release
process. I hope we can go in that direction. It also makes things more
Stephan Richter wrote:
[svn reflecting egg dependency structure]
That would work for me. If it resolves the risk and is still pretty automated,
SVN checkout or even calling make, then it is fine by me. The others have
also pointed out the egg development mode.
Right, I didn't know of that,
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
...
What if we can create in SVN the equivalent of what would be an egg +
its dependencies for checkout, using externals? I know Jim said he
doesn't want to use externals, but I'm thinking in that direction.
You'd have one SVN directory for each egg
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Yes, but Zope 2 included *less* than Zope 3 in the most recent
release, and I'd like *all* packages that are in a Zope 3 release to
be available in a Zope 2 release. I.e. Five doesn't want packages that
aren't in a Zope 3 release, but not less either
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Another use case, probably mostly in the context of Five, it's nice to
have an inclusive release of Zope 3 in Zope 2. The goal of reducing
the amount of code included in Zope 2 sounds nice in theory, but it
stops Five developers from exposing Zope 3
Jim Fulton wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
...
I think 2.9.0 is the _real_ 2.9 beta which will be widely used by ppl :-)
I could be wrong, but if we stick to a 6-month release cycle for feature
releases, I don't think there is going to be much appetite for bug-fix
releases, except in extreme
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
While it's true that this is normal for you and me, I think the cause
of zope is just a library is much helped if we *also* consider it
normal for Zope to be installed into site-packages.
I'm not convinced that Zope is just a library. Certainly
Hi there,
I just noticed something that is not exactly right: zope.formlib, even
though it's sitting in the 'zope' package, depends on zope.app. We need
to work towards making it only depend on stuff in zope, likely by
starting to move things that are reusable from zope.app into zope.
I've
Jeff Shell wrote:
Yes, it's hurry.file. What's Tramline?
http://www.infrae.com/newsitems/tramline_0_4_release
http://www.infrae.com/products/tramline
http://faassen.n--tree.net/blog/view/weblog/2005/11/11/0
Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope3-dev mailing
Jeff Shell wrote:
On 12/15/05, Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
One troublesome scenario I can imagine is that if I make my total
skin in Zope 3.n, it works, and then Zope 3.n + 1 is released and
it has a more specific view registered for some content object that
I'm using. I
Roger Ineichen wrote:
[Christian]
Otherwise this function is likely to become a performance killer, as
I'd have to go all over the place to remove stuff.
We do this everytime we delete a object. This is done with subscribers
and dispatching events to sublocations if a ObjectRemoveEvent get
Roger Ineichen wrote:
[Martijn goes into why this might be slow]
Yes you are right. Do you have another idea?
A fairly drastic one, unfortunately -- catalog all role and permission
assignments and run a query as soon a user is removed.
Hm, perhaps another idea would involve the timestamp
Jim Fulton wrote:
Jeff Shell wrote:
I understand why this is happening, but it's (obviously) not what I
want to have happen. I want MY skin layer's declaration of
'contents.html' to win out. It actually works for all container types,
so maybe I need to declare it for a root Zope container
Christian Theune wrote:
giving recommendations about security, we advice everyone to put their
communication on protected lines. E.g. use HTTPS.
As we are targetting Zope 3.3, I think twisted can be the recommended
configuration option for Zope to run with.
Agreed.
How do you feel about the
Christian Theune wrote:
I propose to disable the comment functionality on the wiki pages for the
Zope 3 developer Wiki.
+1
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Hi there,
Christian Theune wrote:
a) Can we agree on a target group for the Zope 3 wiki? Can it be core
developers only?
The problem is that the only link we have been giving out to the whole
world whenever Zope 3 is announced somewhere is to that developer wiki.
I think we really really
Dario Lopez-Kästen wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 08 December 2005 08:29, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
What's the situation with ZEO then? The ZEO 'zrpc.client' uses
ThreadedAsync.register_loop_callback(), which is a evil monkeypatch to
asyncore. I haven't seen that change recently, so
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
I wonder whether a similar approach as the one taken for the Twisted
server migration is possible. There, if you have an instance running
on ZServer an upgrade will not cause the switch to Twisted, since
Florent Guillaume wrote:
[snip]
I agree that the use case of having translations containing HTML is
important, and thus that we'll have to make sure do_insertStructure_tal
also does correct interpolation when faced with a MessageID.
I now have a monkey patch that patches in a two line
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Florent Guillaume wrote:
[snip]
I agree that the use case of having translations containing HTML is
important, and thus that we'll have to make sure do_insertStructure_tal
also does correct interpolation when faced with a MessageID.
The Zope 3's
Chris Withers wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
The most important project here, IMO, is to rewire Zope 2
to use the Zope 3 publisher. And, of course, to update the
Zope 3 publisher with features from the Zope 2 publisher that
are missing from the Zope 3 publisher (e.g. streaming).
+10
Please don't
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Looking for your comments at http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/SimplifySkinning.
This is a follow-up proposal from http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope3-dev/444.
I rather like having the *concept* skin to talk about. While
implementation-wise things may become
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
I'm about to write an xml importer for importing simple data
(properties, dictionaries). Exporting is easy, importing is trickier
because a parser is required.
Is there any prefered framework for doing such things in zope3 (zope2)?
CMFSetup uses sax, GenericSetup
Dmitry Vasiliev wrote:
[snip]
* currently you can translate any string (not only a message id) like this:
p tal:content=string: STRING TO TRANSLATE i18n:translate=/p
In this case the string will be automatically converted to message id
and then translated. I think we definitely shouldn't
Hi there,
An amendment on the behavior in Zope 2.8 + Five 1.2; it's different than
I thought and actually this is quite a relief to me (though there are
still problems).
Zope 2.8 *is* actually interpolating and translating message ids
correctly *without* i18n:translate already. I think that
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository
Some comments after reading this thread:
This may very well be not the right time for this codebase merge to
happen --
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 16:41, Martin Aspeli wrote:
I think there needs to be a solution for making quick, preferably
TTW customisation of UI templates.
[snip]
You should have a look at CPSSkins for Zope 3 (developed by the Z3ECM
Hi there,
Roger Ineichen wrote:
[snip]
I really think we should stop draw a vision where we will get a
on cklick migration for custom projects. Then this is what people
normaly expectt if we speak about a migration path.
What vision is this? I don't think anybody has been proposing this
Jim Fulton wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
...
People keep telling Zope2 developers that the inclusion of Zope3
doesn't mean you have to touch it, if you don't use it it is just
inert code that won't cause any change in your Zope2 development style.
Hee hee. And they believed it? Do they
Florent Guillaume wrote:
I'd like to do a few simple fixes to events in Zope 3.2 before it's too
late:
[snip]
Please give me your opinion on this quickly
+1
Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub:
301 - 400 of 455 matches
Mail list logo
