April 2005 - Zope-Dev

Five within Zope 2.8 - really cool !
by Andreas Jung 14 Apr '05

14 Apr '05

I just would like to thank everyone working on the Five integration with Zope 2.8. It's really easy and fun to work with views, view classes, adapters and interfaces in a Zope 2 environment. I've always tried to get around Zope 3 somehow but now I am at the point where I am really convinced and healed :-) It was a good decision to ship Five now instead in Zope 2.9 or so. I am sure Five will make Z2 application design a lot more straight forward and cleaner...thanks...great work. Andreas

3 2

Zope Windows setup
by Manuel Markwort 14 Apr '05

14 Apr '05

For my product i want to write my own Installshield setup. To make life easier I want to include the Windows setup of Zope 2.7.1 but I can't find the setup sources in cvs. I need this to manipulate the original Zope setup, as well. Thanks for advises, -- Manuel Markwort (mailto:mma@ratio.de) Software-Development RATIO Entwicklungen GmbH Admiralitaetstrasse 59 D-20459 Hamburg Phone: +49-40-369007-73 Fax: +49-40-369007-75

2 1

Zope 2.8 and Refresh: Uh-oh!
by Lennart Regebro 13 Apr '05

13 Apr '05

Just a reminder to myself, and a heads-up to others: I haven't tested this, but refreshing Five products usually doesn't work, and the same is probably true for 2.8. This needs to be tested, and if it is so, brilliant minds need to ponder it so we can get a solution. Or something. -- Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo http://www.nuxeo.com/ CPS Content Management http://www.cps-project.org/

1 0

ZPT: defer expression fix
by Christian Heimes 08 Apr '05

08 Apr '05

PageTemplates have an undocumented features called defer:. It's a kind of lazy initialization of variables. I've fixed to issues in my tiran-zpt-pydefer branch (svn): * DeferWrappers weren't working inside a python expression because PythonExpr didn't know about them * DeferWrapper didn't cache the result of the expression like ordinary vars do. I would like to merge my branch into 2.7 and 2.8 if I get an ok. Christian

6 12

[Zope 2.8] Inclusion of ExtendedPathIndex?
by Andreas Jung 08 Apr '05

08 Apr '05

I wonder if it is of public interest to include the ExtendedPathIndex from Plone in Zope 2.8. It offers some the nice extension to limit the depth of the search and improves building navigation-trees or similar structures. Opinions? Andreas

4 8

SiteRoot and VHM
by Florent Guillaume 07 Apr '05

07 Apr '05

After spending an hour helping someone debug a site that had an hidden SiteRoot somewhere that prevented a virtual host monster from working, it was suggested to me that if there's a virtual host monster, it should take precedence (and deactivates) any further SiteRoot. I think it's a good idea. Should I create a patch ? Florent -- Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France) CTO, Director of R&D +33 1 40 33 71 59 http://nuxeo.com fg(a)nuxeo.com

5 6

brain.getObject and traversal
by Florent Guillaume 07 Apr '05

07 Apr '05

To try to clarify things even more: The implementation of getObject I checked in a few days ago has the following properties: 1. it checks permissions only on the last step of the traversal, 2. it returns None if for some reason the object cannot be retrieved. Now for the rationale: 1. is necessary in the presence of rights granted deeper in the hierarchy. There's no going around it. 2. is necessary for backward compatibility. *all* the previous implementations of getObject returned None in case of problems. The implementation of 1. looks slightly convoluted but is necessary because we want to leave the details of the traversal (involving __bobo_traverse__, getitem, and checking security with the proper 'accessed' and 'container') to (un)restrictedTraverse. Florent -- Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France) CTO, Director of R&D +33 1 40 33 71 59 http://nuxeo.com fg(a)nuxeo.com

7 22

Zope 2.7.6 release schedule
by Andreas Jung 06 Apr '05

06 Apr '05

The schedule for the next Zope release is a follows: 2.7.6 b1: April 13th 2.7.6 RC1: April 20th 2.7.6 final: April 27th Although 2.7.5 had been relased lately, yesterdays hotfix and another bug justify a new release this month. Andreas

1 0

Can't import objects in Zope 2.8a2
by Santi Camps 06 Apr '05

06 Apr '05

Hi all, I'm just trying recent Zope 2.8 a2 and I'm not able to import any .zexp file. At the begin I thought that it could be caused by the zexp I was trying to import, but default Examples.zexp also cause the same error. I've tried with and without ZEO, and with and without debug mode, always the same result. I'm doing something wrong or this could be a bug ? Thanks in advance The obtained traceback is this one: Time 2005/04/06 14:05:06.943 GMT+2 User Name (User Id) admin (admin) Request URL http://localhost.localdomain:8083/manage_importObject Exception Type BdbQuit Exception Value Traceback (innermost last): Module ZPublisher.Publish, line 113, in publish Module ZPublisher.mapply, line 88, in mapply Module ZPublisher.Publish, line 40, in call_object Module OFS.ObjectManager, line 554, in manage_importObject Module Shared.DC.Scripts.Bindings, line 311, in __call__ Module Shared.DC.Scripts.Bindings, line 348, in _bindAndExec Module App.special_dtml, line 175, in _exec Module DocumentTemplate.DT_Let, line 76, in render Module DocumentTemplate.DT_In, line 703, in renderwob Module App.PersistentExtra, line 44, in locked_in_version Module ZODB.Connection, line 831, in modifiedInVersion Module pdb, line 992, in set_trace Module bdb, line 52, in trace_dispatch Module bdb, line 80, in dispatch_return

6 8

opinion: speeding up large PUT uploads
by Chris McDonough 06 Apr '05

06 Apr '05

Zope's ZPublisher.HTTPRequest.HTTPRequest class has a method named "processInputs". This method is responsible for parsing the body of all requests. It parses all upload bodies regardless of method: PUT, POST, GET, HEAD, etc. In doing so, it uses Python's FieldStorage module to potentially break apart multipart/* bodies into their respective parts. Every invocation of FieldStorage creates a tempfile that is a copy of the entire upload body. So in the common case, when a large file is uploaded via HTTP PUT (both DAV and external editor use PUT exclusively), here's what happens: - ZServer creates a tempfile T1 to hold the file body as it gets pulled in. - When the request makes it to the publisher, processInputs is called and it hands off tempfile T1 to FieldStorage. - FieldStorage reads the entire body and creates another tempfile T2 (an exact copy of T1*, in the case of a PUT request). - T2 is eventually put into REQUEST['BODYFILE']. (*) At least I can't imagine a case where it's not an exact copy. This is costly on large uploads. I'd like to change the top of the processInputs method to do this: if method == 'PUT': # we don't need to do any real input processing if we are # handling a PUT request. self._file = self.stdin return Can anyone think of a reason I shouldn't do this? - C

4 6