April 2007 - Zope-Dev

Zope Tests: 5 OK
by Zope Tests Summarizer 26 Apr '07

26 Apr '07

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Wed Apr 25 12:00:00 2007 UTC to Thu Apr 26 12:00:00 2007 UTC. There were 5 messages: 5 from Zope Unit Tests. Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.7 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Wed Apr 25 20:50:39 EDT 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-April/007634.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.8 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Wed Apr 25 20:52:11 EDT 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-April/007635.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.9 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Wed Apr 25 20:53:41 EDT 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-April/007636.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Wed Apr 25 20:55:12 EDT 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-April/007637.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Wed Apr 25 20:56:43 EDT 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-April/007638.html

1 0

Re: ZClassNG proposal makes Archetypes Easy.
by Christopher Lozinski 26 Apr '07

26 Apr '07

>But that isn't what he thinks he wants, :-) Allow me to speak for what i want. I am glad to hear that people think that there is a role for TTW editing. I am glad that there is a tool in Zope 3 for TTW editing. http://agendaless.com/Members/tseaver/software/userschema/ I am glad that there is a tool in Plone for TTW editing. ATSchemaEditorNG I wish there was a supported tool in Zope 2 for TTW Editing. Even better would be linux GUI development environment. It could also run on Windows. But that is just a dream. Sure there are python editors, that minimize the number of mistakes I can make, but it is better to have direct Zope editors, where the only things I can do are the ones that Zope allows me to do. I took a quick look at the CPS documentation in french, my french is not that good, it still looked like lots of opportunity for me to mistype python code. Maybe I was looking at the wrong page. And I would like these schema generators to understand not only specific python objects, but also the network of python business objects. I think that in Zope 3 a little bit of that is in there. A choice list for a field can be generated from some other list of objects. But I would love that network model of objects to be more deeply embedded into these frameworks. Specifically I am less interested in the interfaces, and more interested that a semiconductor factory can contain etchers, diffusion equipment etc. I am less concerned about the interfaces, and more concerned about the business relationships between objects. I am not quite sure how I want to specify that in software. I would like a security model based on business rules. I loved Zope 2, but I now understand and need more. I want to build a security model based on my business model. For example, Clients in a company who have the accounting privilege can see but not edit their companies invoices, and only their companies invoices. Recruiters can generate invoices, and see the account status for their clients, but not for other companies. Supervisors can see all the invoices pertaining to them, and see the financial reports for the recruiters they supervise. That is way different from the Zope 2 security model. Sure it can be implemented in Zope 2, but it is tricky, complex, prone to errors, hard to debug, and hard to test. I think Zope 3 comes closer to allowing me to build my own security model. Of course I would love such a security model in Zope 2, but I am not waiting for it. Maybe I could do it with 5. I would love my existing ZClasses to continue to work. There is another big issue. I like to minimize the number of lines of code in my application framework. This just minimizes my complexity. My pet theory, for which I have no proof, is that there is just too much stuff in the stack python/zope/cmf/archetypes/plone for it to be simple. For my next app the only thing I have approved so far is python and ZODB. The Zope 3 Schema component also looks interesting. I need to look at it more closely. Maybe Zope 3 Security will make it in. Keep the platform simple is my plan. I am just not willing to grab the whole Zope 3 bundle of stuff, and then add Grok on top of that to make it simpler. The decisions I make now, I have to live with for a long time. The need for grok is a signal to me that the Zope 3 abstraction is not the abstraction I am looking for. A much simpler solution for me is to build a business model on top of the ZODB, and then just access the few user interfaces from Zope 2. If you want to read more about what this zope customer is currently thinking you can read more here. http://webclasses.freerecruiting.com/BusinessClasses I will take a moment to mention a python gui editor for a tree of objects. It is GPL. It would be interesting to hook this up to the ZODB. http://www.bellz.org/treeline/ All your feedback, while difficult, has been very helpful in refining my thinking. Regards Chris

2 1

ZClasses Maintenance and Upgrade
by Christopher Lozinski 25 Apr '07

25 Apr '07

Well I have finally reached the stage where I am pushing the limits of ZClasses and would love an upgrade. Guess I need to do it myself. I run 38 specialty job boards, and am getting close to automatically putting up 300 more, each one has a custom ZClass. I am automatically generating ZClasses, Indexes, and Formulator Form's Fields. I don't like that each parent class lists its legal children, I think it would be better if the child listed the legal parents. The creation of an add permission for each of the 300 ZClasses I am about to generate also bothers me. I do not quite understand the design of ZClasses. I would expect that a class has three branches. One would be the class methods, one would be the instance methods, and one would be the list of instance variables. It would be nice if each instance variable had its own permission. Instead ZClasses has the create method and permissions at the same level as the ZClass. I think this is related to how zope handles Products. And then the instance variables are all on a propertysheet. I suspect this is because of how permissions are handled, there is computational efficiency in sharing a permission among the properties on a propertysheet. But I am not quite sure. Anyone want to enlighten me on this matter. I may take the liberty of calling up Jim Fulton for him to explain the history to me. On a related matter I think it would be great if we do a version of ZClasses that used the new Zope 3 permissions in 5, and that worked with the new ZODB concurrency control mechanisms. Regards Chris

6 7

Zope Tests: 5 OK
by Zope Tests Summarizer 25 Apr '07

25 Apr '07

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Tue Apr 24 12:00:00 2007 UTC to Wed Apr 25 12:00:00 2007 UTC. There were 5 messages: 5 from Zope Unit Tests. Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.7 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Tue Apr 24 20:54:17 EDT 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-April/007629.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.8 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Tue Apr 24 20:55:48 EDT 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-April/007630.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.9 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Tue Apr 24 20:57:19 EDT 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-April/007631.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Tue Apr 24 20:58:50 EDT 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-April/007632.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Tue Apr 24 21:00:21 EDT 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-April/007633.html

1 0

ZClassNG proposal makes Archetypes Easy.
by Christopher Lozinski 25 Apr '07

25 Apr '07

For those who have not been following this thread, here is the proposal. http://wiki.zope.org/zope2/ZClassesNG I will go ahead and change the name. I have a name proposal at the end of this email. Last night I realized that this proposal, will make it really easy for me to create Archetype Classes on Plone. Suddenly Plone development goes from painful to fast and easy, and I can build my new apps on Plone reasonably quickly. Which I need, because I am moving from a single person company to a multi-person company, and the whole approvals cycle is now becoming much more important to me. Just for completeness, I do need to respond to the specific feedback I received. >If there is such an easy translation from ZMI-based ZClass to filesystem >product, then why not write the filesystem product in the first place? There is room in the world for both through-the-web development and file system based development. On his personal home page http://zwiki.org/JimFulton Jim Fulton, the Zope Pope writes: "Make ZWiki subclassable from ZClasses. This will make it a lot easier to experiment and innovate." So I am in good company on the need for through-the-web development. Have you seen how many lines of code it takes on the file system to put up a simple product with 1 instance variable? I am just not as smart as others. I make mistakes. If I can do a simple point and click to create a product, I will make fewer mistakes, and it will be generated faster, and I have more time for other things. There is just too much software which needs to be written. >You're assuming there is an obvious one-to-one mapping between ZClass >syntax and non-ZClass products on the filesystem, which may or may not >be true. That is a good point. I expect to see several different patterns to emerge, all of which can be supported. Right now I see multiple classes in a single product. >You're relying on code generation, so you'll run into trouble when the >two versions (ZODB and filesystem) diverge for whatever reason (someone >edited the code, say). Good Point. Better only edit the code in one place or this problem will arise. I will add a read me to the file system, saying DO NOT EDIT THIS CODE ON THE FILE SYSTEM! And a flag, perhaps a file name, DO_NOT_OVERWRITE which will prevent overwrites. Just think, this will be the fastest way to generate a new zope product. That alone makes it useful! I added this comment to the proposal wiki. Thank you very much Martin! >Also, Zope needs a restart to load a new product, which will mess with >the workflow. Great Point. I hope this one is fixable. I would think it should be possible for Zope to be able to dynamically unload a Product, or load or reload a product. I wonder why it does not do so now? Is this fixable? Of course once the product is loaded, a refresh.txt option allows it to be changed and rewritten dynamically. >But the bigger picture here is that an awful lot of people are telling >you that spending your time on this is a bad idea, that you'll probably >find it more difficult than you imagine, and that if you are going to >invent new things, your time may be better spent pulling the same >direction that most other people are. Well it all depends on how you define better. >By all means, give it a go, but you will probably find it difficult to >get help when you are stuck because (a) no-one else seems to care and Well maybe this is not the right mailing list. Let me go see what the archetypes mailing list thinks of all of this. Besides this is pretty easy to do. I have written file-system based products in Zope and Plone. >(b) not many other people seem to even know how this should work. I think the best way to explain how it works is to put up a demo site. If I can improve the written description in any way, let me know. Which part of it do you personally not understand? Clicking to define instance variables? Autogenerating the File System Folder? Aquiring the instance folder at run-time to give the appearance of instance methods? I do agree with you on one point. It needs a different name. Can I call them LozinskiClasses? I am surprised more people do not ego-name products. Look a new word! Regards Chris

9 12

Zope Tests: 1 OK
by Zope Tests Summarizer 24 Apr '07

24 Apr '07

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Mon Apr 23 12:00:00 2007 UTC to Tue Apr 24 12:00:00 2007 UTC. There was 1 message, from Zope Unit Tests Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.7 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Mon Apr 23 20:05:47 EDT 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-April/007628.html

1 0

Zope Tests: 5 OK
by Zope Tests Summarizer 23 Apr '07

23 Apr '07

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Sun Apr 22 12:00:00 2007 UTC to Mon Apr 23 12:00:00 2007 UTC. There were 5 messages: 5 from Zope Unit Tests. Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.7 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Sun Apr 22 20:51:30 EDT 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-April/007623.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.8 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Sun Apr 22 20:53:01 EDT 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-April/007624.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.9 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Sun Apr 22 20:54:33 EDT 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-April/007625.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Sun Apr 22 20:56:04 EDT 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-April/007626.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Sun Apr 22 20:57:35 EDT 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-April/007627.html

1 0

Zope Tests: 5 OK
by Zope Tests Summarizer 22 Apr '07

22 Apr '07

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Sat Apr 21 12:00:00 2007 UTC to Sun Apr 22 12:00:00 2007 UTC. There were 5 messages: 5 from Zope Unit Tests. Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.7 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Sat Apr 21 20:50:24 EDT 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-April/007618.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.8 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Sat Apr 21 20:51:55 EDT 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-April/007619.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.9 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Sat Apr 21 20:53:26 EDT 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-April/007620.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Sat Apr 21 20:54:57 EDT 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-April/007621.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Sat Apr 21 20:56:28 EDT 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-April/007622.html

1 0

Zope Tests: 5 OK
by Zope Tests Summarizer 21 Apr '07

21 Apr '07

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Fri Apr 20 12:00:00 2007 UTC to Sat Apr 21 12:00:00 2007 UTC. There were 5 messages: 5 from Zope Unit Tests. Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.7 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Fri Apr 20 20:55:50 EDT 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-April/007613.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.8 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Fri Apr 20 20:57:21 EDT 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-April/007614.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.9 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Fri Apr 20 20:58:52 EDT 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-April/007615.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Fri Apr 20 21:00:23 EDT 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-April/007616.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Fri Apr 20 21:01:54 EDT 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-April/007617.html

1 0

buildbot failure in Zope branches 2.9 2.4 Linux zc-buildbot
by buildbot＠zope.com 20 Apr '07

20 Apr '07

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: 136 Blamelist: alecm,andreasjung,ctheune,darrylcousins,dobe,faassen,gary,jim,jukart,jvloothuis,ksmith_mcweekly,mj,philikon,rocky,rogerineichen,schwendinger,srichter,stmartin,tseaver,wichert,zagy BUILD FAILED: failed test sincerely, -The Buildbot

1 0