November 2005 - Zope-Dev

buildbot failure in Zope trunk 2.4 Linux zc-buildbot
by buildbot＠zope.com 25 Nov '05

25 Nov '05

The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope trunk 2.4 Linux zc-buildbot. Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/ Build Reason: changes Build Source Stamp: 1820 Blamelist: efge BUILD FAILED: failed test sincerely, -The Buildbot

1 0

ConflictError shouldn't subclass Exception
by Patrick Gerken 25 Nov '05

25 Nov '05

2005/11/24, Chris Withers <chris(a)simplistix.co.uk>: > Interestingly, you can raise things that don't subclass Exception in > python. This was discussed before, and I firmly agree with, that zodb > conflicts should _not_ sublcass exception. That way, there's less chance > of them being caught by inexperienced programmers putting in try: except > Exception: 's. > > How would we go about making this change? class my_own_exception: pass try: raise my_own_exception() except: print "Doesn't help against inexperienced programmers. sadly" You can even raise a string, which is accidently done in zope2 and where my with provided solution and unit test is pending. It is better to beat people using except: without good reasons. Patrick

2 1

How bad _are_ ConflictErrors
by Chris Withers 25 Nov '05

25 Nov '05

Hi All, We all know that ideally we should have no ConflictErrors happening in our apps, but of course, that's often not the case ;-) Firstup, some questions about what gets logged for ConflictErrors, here's a line from one of our event logs: 2005-11-17T08:00:27 INFO(0) ZODB conflict error at /some_uri (347 conflicts since startup at 2005-11-08T17:56:20) What is this telling me? Did the user actually see a ConflictError page? Or was this error successfully resolved? What object did this ConflictError occur on and/or how can I modify my our Zope instances to find out where the conflict was occurring? Now, when should the number of ConflictErrors logged in this way start to become worrying? I analysed the logs from our cluster and we're getting about 450 conflict errors in our busiest hours when the cluster of 8 ZEO clients is taking about 11,000 hits in that hour. Is this 'bad'? If so, where should I start to make things better? All feedback greatfully received, especially if people have been in similar situations... cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk

9 19

buildbot failure in Zope trunk 2.4 Linux zc-buildbot
by buildbot＠zope.com 25 Nov '05

25 Nov '05

The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope trunk 2.4 Linux zc-buildbot. Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/ Build Reason: changes Build Source Stamp: 1818 Blamelist: anguenot,chrisw,efge,jinty,sidnei,yuppie BUILD FAILED: failed test sincerely, -The Buildbot

1 0

Not-really-unit-testing ideas.
by Lennart Regebro 25 Nov '05

25 Nov '05

I noticed on the unit tests I'm currently working on, that most of my time is wasted waiting for sites to be created. So I've been thinking of ways to solve this. Basically, I'd like to create a site once, and use it for all subsequent tests, until I made a change that means the site needs to be recreated. But how? Well, I'm not sure. How, for example, could I use a normal ZODB, with a specific name (so as not to interfere with the normal ZODB) in the unit tests? If I could do that, I could implement a switch to either rebuild the ZODB, or use the existing one. This would shave some 50% of the unit testing time. Ideas? Or am I just stupid? -- Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo http://www.nuxeo.com/ CPS Content Management http://www.cps-project.org/

4 4

Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
by Julien Anguenot 24 Nov '05

24 Nov '05

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: > Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at: > http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository > I'm -1 on this as well. Some Zope3 developers don't care about Zope2 and this is fair enough in my point of view. Zope2 starts to get old and appears to be really a mess compared to Zope3 in *2005*, plus it's not such an attractive platform as it used to be couple of years ago. (Don't get me wrong on this. Time just changed. I'm using Zope2 much more than Zope3 nowadays and still I like it even if I'm *dreaming* about only using a modern platform "à la" Zope3) I would fear that some new folks might find the Zope3 project much more confusing and less attractive because of the Zope2 mess around. (common mailing list, common repository etc...) Please, let's not mess up Zope3... Cheers, J. - -- Julien Anguenot | Nuxeo R&D (Paris, France) CPS Platform : http://www.cps-project.org Zope3 / ECM : http://www.z3lab.org mail: anguenot at nuxeo.com; tel: +33 (0) 6 72 57 57 66 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDhMNqGhoG8MxZ/pIRArjpAJwImKaJLnGO9URfgakS6njnzWzwPwCggHnY KHhFGbndADW7GLL2UFv33Sw= =Yppy -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

10 21

Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
by Martijn Faassen 24 Nov '05

24 Nov '05

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 -- there is a lot of resistance. For one, we don't want to lose Stephan Richter. ;) I do believe however that such a right time very well may occur at some point in the future. Jim has repeatedly said that at some point in the future Zope 2 and Zope 3 may become profiles of the same application. I like this vision. I don't know whether Jim would agree, but in such a situation it would make sense to me to have both Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the same repository. You can also turn that around and say it's more likely to happen if they actually *would* be in the same repository -- that's Philipp's innovative idea. I am glad this discussion took place. It makes people's positions more clear. I believe it's good that Philipp's proposal and this discussion has prepared people's minds for such a possible future scenario. Maybe it will never happen. Perhaps we'll have a better alternative. We'll see. To the Zope 3 developers -- Zope 2 is a major user of your technology now. Zope 2 developers got a stake in Zope 3. The Zope 2 usecase is at least as important as that of any other software that uses Zope 3. Zope 2 is also different from the other software -- it's a framework with a shared community, common roots, and a lot of shared code, and the users of this framework actively want to evolve towards Zope 3. Zope 2 developers will therefore become increasingly more visible within the Zope 3 community. We won't be dropping Zope 2 for Zope 3 easily, as we can't. We have huge codebases to maintain and to grow, and they're built on Zope 2. It would make bad business sense to drop them. We are trying to do something quite difficult -- evolve the Zope 2 codebase, the same codebase some of you are so afraid of, into a situation where it's closer to Zope 3. All the time we need to keep our applications up and running. Perhaps appreciate the complexity of this task for a minute; Zope 3 is not the only impressive software development activity that takes place in our Zope community... I think we have a lot to offer. Some support would be appreciated. Thank you, Martijn

1 0

Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
by Gary Poster 24 Nov '05

24 Nov '05

On Nov 23, 2005, at 10:16 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: > Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at: > http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ > ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository I already spoke with Philipp on IRC about this, but for the record, and speaking personally, and very arguably selfishly: -1. I think it will place too much burden on the small group of Zope 3 developers, some (many?) of whom do not develop or use Zope 2. Yes, I understand the corresponding response is that Zope 2 devs would theoretically contribute more to Zope 3. If the merge happens, I suppose we'll see if Zope 2 "pollutes" Zope 3, doesn't affect it, or helps it. Arguing about the future is a tough job. Gary

2 1

Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
by Martijn Faassen 23 Nov '05

23 Nov '05

Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: > Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at: > http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository Indeed this is madness I think I like. :) This sounds like a sensible step to make after the Zope 2.9/Zope 3.2 release. +1 from me. Regards, Martijn

1 0

Re: RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
by Tres Seaver 23 Nov '05

23 Nov '05

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: > Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at: > http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository Very well thought out, very well written. +1 from me. Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 tseaver(a)palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDhJiF+gerLs4ltQ4RAglCAJ9a+9g2jqXROPuh+fEs/sAYiGfJmgCfU+G0 Wk9G3lsZ37AIrOS0Iafw74M= =XYaJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0