June 2004 - Zope-Dev

Specific Qs about diffs btw Zope 3 & Zope 2.x (2.7, etc)
by Eric Hielscher 25 Jun '04

25 Jun '04

Hi, I'm trying to decide which version of Zope would work best for a project on which I've been assigned to work. I've personally had no contact with Zope before yesterday when I downloaded 2.7.1 and 3.0.0b1 to start playing around a bit. The project involves a web page where users can upload files of a specific format (zipped SCORM-conformant e-learning files to be exact). The system would then rip out all of the meta data and perhaps the full text of the files in the zip and index them for searching. The MD is in XML, but we'd also perhaps like to support RDF and some others like RSS. Each file in the system would then be linked to the MD by some sort of GUID-equivalent. Then the users could search the MD and text and the system would return a results list, and afterward repackage their content. Now, I've been asked to decide which version of Zope would work better for this. I would think that native XML support (which I read will be better in 3 but don't understand how yet) would be a huge plus. Also, the new ObjectHub replacement for the ZCatalog might really help me. Zope's native authentication services have also been given a huge overhaul and we'd like to leverage those as well. I was hoping that someone out there with better in-depth knowledge of Zope would be able to read this list of reqs and be able to tell me in (semi-)detailed fashion just why 3 or 2.x would be a better decision. Thanks all for your help, Eric Hielscher

2 1

Re: zope-dev list policies
by Casey Duncan 25 Jun '04

25 Jun '04

-1 on changing the list policy. I read and post to all of the public lists through Gmane, which won't work if the policy is changed. I rarely see spam get through list either (unless Gmane is filtering it all out for me), so I fail to see the problem from that point of view. -Casey On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 21:24:07 -0400 "Tim Peters" <tim.one(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Over on the zope and zope-dev lists, there's currently agitation to > make them members-only mailing lists. The point is that spam could > not get thru then (unless posted by a member). > > What would zodb-dev members like? > > Posting by a list member would not be affected, unless you attempted > to send a message from an email account other than one you subscribed > with. In the latter case, your message would be bounced back to you. > > You could worm around that by subscribing to zodb-dev with that > address too, then going to your list membership page on the web and > checking the box to suspend email delivery on that account. Then you > could post using that account too, but wouldn't also get zodb-dev > email on that account. > > I'm the list admin for zodb-dev, and don't have a preference. If you > do, and it's strong enough to scream it, shout. The loudest screamer > will win<wink>. By default, I won't change the current policy (anyone > can post here, member or not).

5 6

Re: Re: CatalogBrains since Zope2.7.1b1
by Santi Camps 25 Jun '04

25 Jun '04

"Security was tightened for getObject recently as part of a general refactor of that code. I am happy to consider whether the security is too tight, in which case it could be backed off a bit. Previously getObject performed no security checks and returned objects for catalog results regardless of security permissions (it used unrestrictedTraverse). I switched it to use restrictedTraverse which checks security all the way down on all of the containing folders and on the final object itself. This is how path expressions work, for example." I think this new security checks could be a problem in some cases. They are Ok when using restricted code, but from trusted code I'm not sure that force to use restrictedTraverse could be considered a goal. For instance, imagin an application with employees of one department managing dossiers with economic data inside. Employees of accounting department shouldn't have access to these dossiers objects, but they need to obtain some reports with a sum of all dossiers economic data. So, accounting department users shouldn't have access to dossiers objects, but from reports trusted code these dossiers need to accessed. I think a possible solution could be an additional optional parameter of .getobject used from trusted code when unrestrictedTraverse want to be used. What do you think ? Regards Santi Camps

2 1

CatalogBrains since Zope2.7.1b1
by Eric Brun 25 Jun '04

25 Jun '04

Hi, I have a problem with 'getObject' method of CatalogBrains class on Zope271b1 : it's return None. But with a Zope2.7.0 my object is correctly find and returned. The permissions are right. is there any bug here ? Thanks Eric Brun Ingénieur de développement eric.brun(a)pentila.com Pentila Bâtiment Euclide 73370 Le Bourget du Lac Savoie Technolac http://www.pentila.com

6 6

Email marketing
by bn＠hotmail.com 25 Jun '04

25 Jun '04

1 0

Zope Collector issue #1384
by Simon Eisenmann 25 Jun '04

25 Jun '04

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I just submitted issue #1384 to zope.org's collector but got this error message: Email notice error: '(110, 'Connection timed out')' Therefore i send the note of this collector issue to the dev list. See the issue at: http://zope.org/Collectors/Zope/1384 Cheers, ~ Simon *** snip *** len(LazyCat) doesnt work when tried to read more elements as in the LazyCat before: ~From time to time we had some problems with doing Zcatalog based OR searches. To do this we simply add one catalog result to the other. An addition of LazyMap's produces a LazyCat object. In some conditions our application raised "AttributeError: LazyCat instance has no attribute '_seq'". Today i looked into this in detail and found the problem in the LazyCat implementation. So the problem is that when you iterate over more LazyCat list elements that there are actually in the list an IndexError is raised. This is fine of course. But afterwards you are no longer able to get the length of this LazyCat, because the error above is raised. You need to read the length of a LazyCat _before_ you have code which probably could raise an IndexError of this list. To test this behavior use the following script on a ZCatalog: """ catalog = context.portal_catalog res1 = catalog(SearchableText="admin") res2 = catalog(SearchableText="icoya") res = res1 + res2 for x in range(6): ~ try: print "x", x, res[x] ~ except: pass print "len", len(res) return printed """ In this case the real length of the res LazyCat is 5 .. so i iterate to 6 which raises an IndexError. Afterwards it's no longer possible to retrieve the length of this (now borked) LazyCat. If i had read the length before the iteration, all works perfectly, since the implementation "remembers" the len if it was computed once. So if this is to be fixed then the implementation of the LazyCat length method has to be changed slightly to check for the missing _seq attribute and then use the self._data for length retrieval. *** snip *** - -- Simon Eisenmann [ mailto:simon@struktur.de ] [ struktur AG | Junghansstraße 5 | 70469 Stuttgart ] [ T. +49.711.896656.68 | F.+49.711.89665610 ] [ http://www.struktur.de | mailto:info@struktur.de ] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFA2+yqcKXkdvrBGTARAnZYAKCinwA7HLamr0ZTzVQNgi8oCpkh+QCeK31k zqaOTHEqiUN9D8hYxgq4AwM= =kEId -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Undeliverable Mail
by Postmaster 25 Jun '04

25 Jun '04

Requested action not taken: virus detected Original message follows. Message-ID: <1SomeRandomStuffGoesHere(a)orotech.net> From: zope-dev(a)zope.org To: <postmaster(a)orotech.net> Subject: SPAM: something for you Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 06:51:22 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="SomeRandomStuffGoesHere" X-RBL-Warning: REVDNS: This E-mail was sent from a MUA/MTA 212.54.103.34 with no reverse DNS entry. X-Declude-Sender: zope-dev(a)zope.org [212.54.103.34] X-Note: This E-mail was scanned by Declude JunkMail (www.declude.com) for spam. X-Spam-Tests-Failed: REVDNS, SPAMHEADERS, WEIGHT10 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --SomeRandomStuffGoesHere Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You have spam! Subject: something for you From: zope-dev(a)zope.org Tests Failed: REVDNS, SPAMHEADERS, WEIGHT10 To view the E-mail, just click the attachment. --SomeRandomStuffGoesHere Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="spam.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="spam.eml" Received: from orotech.net [212.54.103.34] by orotech.net (SMTPD32-8.12) id AB35B3D00CA; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 02:50:29 -0400 X-AntiVirus: Checked by Dr.Web (http://www.drweb.net) From: zope-dev(a)zope.org To: postmaster(a)orotech.net Subject: something for you Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 09:49:37 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="00380126" Message-Id: <200406250250468.SM01504(a)orotech.net> --00380126 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit that is bad --00380126 --00380126-- --SomeRandomStuffGoesHere--

1 0

A Virus was Detected in a document you sent.
by donotreply＠onyxes.com 25 Jun '04

25 Jun '04

If you did not send a message to onyxes.com you were probably the victim of e-mail spoofing. Email spoofing Mass-mailing worms often use a technique called "spoofing." When a mass-mailing worm performs its email routine, it randomly selects an email address from somewhere on the infected computer. It then uses that random email address in the From field, and emails an infected email to other email addresses it finds on the infected computer. There have been many cases reported where users of computers receive complaints that they sent an infected message to someone. Because the mass-mailing worm does not use the email address of the infected computer in the email it sends, there is no way to know where the infected email came from. (Symantec Anti-Virus Research Center website) We recommend that you check your computer for virus. Below is the information: The infected component in the scanned document was deleted. Violation Information: The attachment message.pif contained the virus W32.Netsky.P@mm and was deleted. The filename extension of attachment message.pif violated the content filtering rule Delete Attachment and was deleted.

1 0

(no subject)
by 真的 25 Jun '04

25 Jun '04

1 0

(no subject)
by 免费 25 Jun '04

25 Jun '04

1 0