February 2006 - Zope-Dev

Deprecating Zope 2 interfaces?
by Philipp von Weitershausen 23 Feb '06

23 Feb '06

Hi there, I don't think it will make much sense to keep Zope 2 interfaces around for more than one year from now. In other words, I'm suggesting to deprecate them for Zope 2.10. There are a few places in Zope 2 where they are still used for checks (mostly webdav, OFS, ZCTextIndex). For the deprecation period, these checks will have to be done against both the Zope 2 and the Zope 3 interface. I think this is as hard as it gets for the switch-over to Zope 3 interfaces, but perhaps I'm missing something. Philipp

4 8

ImageFile weirdness?
by Jürgen Herrmann 22 Feb '06

22 Feb '06

hi all! i have a class ImageContainer in a python product, that has an ImageFile attached, it's named 1.gif: ... image = ImageFile('1.gif', '/some/where') setattr(self.__class__, '1.gif', image) ... i have an ImageContainer instance in my zope root. if i point my browser to http://localhost/ImageContainer/1.gif , i can see the image in the browser, everything seems fine, image is displayed. if however the image is named "1" only, e.g. ... image = ImageFile('1', '/some/where') setattr(self.__class__, '1', image) ... i notice a difference when viewing http://localhost/ImageContainer/1 . the browser pops up a download window, showing the content type is application/octet-stream. using firefox' livehttpheaders extension i found out that the content-type header is missing. if i view http://localhost/ImageContainer/1/ everything is fine however. now i peeked into App.ImageFile, where i can find a index_html() method, where the content-type header is set. viewing http://localhost/ImageContainer/1 never calls the index_html method though, http://localhost/ImageContainer/1/ obviously does. that's where i'm stuck now, who handles the ImageFile's invokation, if called like http://localhost/ImageContainer/1 ? ImageFile inherits from Acquisition.Explicit, nothing else... thanks for your attention, regards, juergen herrmann _______________________________________________________________________ >> XLhost.de - eXperts in Linux hosting << Jürgen Herrmann Bruderwöhrdstraße 15b, DE-93051 Regensburg Fon: +49 (0)700 XLHOSTDE [0700 95467833] Fax: +49 (0)721 151 463027 WEB: http://www.XLhost.de

1 0

ImageFile weirdness?
by Jürgen Herrmann 22 Feb '06

22 Feb '06

hi all! i have a class ImageContainer in a python product, that has an ImageFile attached, it's named 1.gif: ... image = ImageFile('1.gif', '/some/where') setattr(self.__class__, '1.gif', image) ... i have an ImageContainer instance in my zope root. if i point my browser to http://localhost/ImageContainer/1.gif , i can see the image in the browser, everything seems fine, image is displayed. if however the image is named "1" only, e.g. ... image = ImageFile('1', '/some/where') setattr(self.__class__, '1', image) ... i notice a difference when viewing http://localhost/ImageContainer/1 . the browser pops up a download window, showing the content type is application/octet-stream. using firefox' livehttpheaders extension i found out that the content-type header is missing. if i view http://localhost/ImageContainer/1/ everything is fine however. now i peeked into App.ImageFile, where i can find a index_html() method, where the content-type header is set. viewing http://localhost/ImageContainer/1 never calls the index_html method though, http://localhost/ImageContainer/1/ obviously does. that's where i'm stuck now, who handles the ImageFile's invokation, if called like http://localhost/ImageContainer/1 ? ImageFile inherits from Acquisition.Explicit, nothing else... thanks for your attention, regards, juergen herrmann _______________________________________________________________________ >> XLhost.de - eXperts in Linux hosting << Jürgen Herrmann Bruderwöhrdstraße 15b, DE-93051 Regensburg Fon: +49 (0)700 XLHOSTDE [0700 95467833] Fax: +49 (0)721 151 463027 WEB: http://www.XLhost.de

1 0

buildbot failure in Zope branches 2.9 2.4 Linux zc-buildbot
by buildbot＠zope.com 22 Feb '06

22 Feb '06

The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope branches 2.9 2.4 Linux zc-buildbot. Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/ Build Reason: changes Build Source Stamp: 3191 Blamelist: frerich,hdima,mkerrin,philikon,srichter,whitmo,yuppie BUILD FAILED: failed test sincerely, -The Buildbot

1 0

Re: The Zope Software Certification Program and Common Repository Proposal
by Philipp von Weitershausen 21 Feb '06

21 Feb '06

Andrew Milton wrote: > +-------[ Stephan Richter ]---------------------- > | Hello everyone, > | > | With the development of Zope 3, the Zope developers committed to a new > | development process and higher software quality guidelines. With the adoption > | of Zope 3 technologies in the wider Zope community, we should also start > | using the process for third party package development. > | > | I have spent the last two weeks working on a proposal that defines a Zope > | Software Certification Program (ZSCP) and a Common Repository that implements > | this process. The proposal is attached to this mail. I welcome any comments > | about it! > > So in order to even get your Open Source package LISTED, you have to sign over > the rights of your code to Zope Corp (currently, Zope Foundation later), and then > check it into the svn respository. > > Is this is correct? No. The common repository under the wings of ZC/ZF is just *a* repository that implements the ZSCP. There can be others, for example the Plone repository, the collective repository (perhaps), etc. I had earlier suggested to Stephan that we should keep the common repository separate from ZSCP and there out of this proposal. IMO there should be a separate proposal for the common repository. I guess he didn't agree. I think both the ZSCP and the common repository (in the context of the ZF) are a great idea. We should try to have as much stuff as possible in the common repository, but we shouldn't make the process dependent on it. I'm therefore still suggesting to divide up the proposal. Philipp

3 4

Re: [Plone-developers] Re: The Zope Software Certification Program and Common Repository Proposal
by Stephan Richter 21 Feb '06

21 Feb '06

On Tuesday 21 February 2006 08:47, whit wrote: > what hopefully zscp would do is allow a code commons at one end (ala > collective, easy entry, friendly to experimentation) and a fully > certified set of components at the other. > > In between, there would be well defined process for how software moves > from the primordial ooze to canon. Well said. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training

1 0

Re: [Zope] Re: The Zope Software Certification Program and Common Repository Proposal
by Stephan Richter 21 Feb '06

21 Feb '06

On Tuesday 21 February 2006 07:15, Andrew Milton wrote: > The proposal currently requires 3rd party code to be handed over to Zope > Foundation[1] AND checked into the ZF svn repository in order to be > 'certified'. You indicated this was indeed the case. That's not true. Phillip and I both negated this assertion. Where did you read this? The quotes you had earlier were totally out of context. Nothing in Section 2 requires anything of section 3. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training

1 0

Re: [Zope] Re: The Zope Software Certification Program and Common Repository Proposal
by Philipp von Weitershausen 21 Feb '06

21 Feb '06

Andrew Milton wrote: > +-------[ Philipp von Weitershausen ]---------------------- > | > | Handing over ownership to the ZF and therefore having signed a > | Contributor Agreement are the terms of the svn.zope.org repository, just > | like that code is to be made ZPL. > > The license part is irrelevant after you've signed over the IP. > > | These are the rules of the repository, even today (except for s/ZF/ZC). > > This is for the core product. This is not add-on code. It makes sense for the > core product. > > | If you're not happy with that, then use > | your another repository. Nobody is forcing you to put your stuff there. > > Indeed. Anyone that wants to try is welcome to come around and have a go d8) FWIW, Martijn and I did this with the z3base (http://codespeak.net/z3) > | Putting stuff into svn.zope.org *does* have advantages: > | > | * it's easy to feed packages upstream to Zope for a later inclusion into > | a Zope distribution. > > Putting into svn isn't the same as requiring IP handover. You can still put > things into the repository without IP handover. > > | * putting a project/package under the wings of the ZF ensures long-term > | IP protection > > How? I think my death + 70 years is further away than the death of ZF, or in > fact the death of Zope. But the end of your commitment to this particular software and/or Zope might not be so far. Hunting developers down for getting their approval of a license change or something like that after 5 years or so would be a considerable pain. > | * code in svn.zope.org will be under the common control of the Zope > | developers which makes long-term maintenance easier to ensure. > > This has nothing to do with handing over IP either. Noone disputes that the > Zope Developers lives will be easier if things are in a central svn. Why this > should require someone to hand over their IP to ZF is a mystery. I never said the advantages of putting stuff into svn.zope.org necessarily have to have anything to do with handing over IP (actually, it's joint-ownership so it's sharing IP). > | * the common license (ZPL) and the common ownership of the ZF do away > | with some legal headaches... > > The ONLY legal headache common ownership does away with, is that ZC or ZF (or > future owners) are free to change the license without asking permission of the > original author. The license itself is irrelevant, it doesn't apply to the > copyright holder. > > IP "sharing" certainly has no advantages to the original author. Any lawsuit > arising from some problem with the code would almost certainly name all stakeholders. > > Repository of 3rd party code? Great Idea. > Packaging standards? Great Idea. > Compliance Rating? Great Idea. > > Requiring IP Handover? Makes a mockery of the Open Source movement. Plone does it, ASF does it, FSF does it. Seems to work. Note that with ZC (and I presume this will continue with the ZF) it's joint-ownership, not a total handover. > Why should Mark Shuttleworth who has plenty of means, hand over IP for (parts of) > SchoolTool? Good question. Why would Zope Corporation hand over IP of Zope to the Zope Foundation? Why would we contribute code to the Plone Foundation or anyone else? In order to put the code under public govenance. Anyways, you're welcome to contribute code to the z3base if you'd prefer a public repository that doesn't require IP handover/sharing. Who knows, perhaps we'll even manage to implement the ZSCP for some packages there :). Philipp

2 1

Re: [Zope] Re: The Zope Software Certification Program and Common Repository Proposal
by Stephan Richter 21 Feb '06

21 Feb '06

On Tuesday 21 February 2006 05:13, Andrew Milton wrote: > Why should Mark Shuttleworth who has plenty of means, hand over IP for > (parts of) SchoolTool? I'm sure he has more than enough ways to protect his > IP. Or are you saying that it makes sense for ZF/ZC to protect him? The reason the SchoolTool project would be interested in putting a couple packages in the common repository would be so they are moved into the Zope 3 core pr are part of the distribution. It would mean that the SchoolTool developers have to maintain less code. However, we do not need to put all of SchoolTool into the repository just to get certified. We can ask for certification with the SchoolTool code living in another repository. In fact, I think SchoolTool might be one of the first outside projects to gain certifications, since it is the only large project that I know of that fulfills the level 2 requirements (I think it could even get level 3). Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training

1 0

Re: [Zope] Re: The Zope Software Certification Program and Common Repository Proposal
by Stephan Richter 21 Feb '06

21 Feb '06

<snip IP discussion> Okay, this discussion is off-topic. I will not respond to it, unless I read about something that relates directly to the proposal. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training

1 0