June 2008 - Zope-Dev

Zope 3 on Python 2.5, Zope 3 releases
by Martijn Faassen 18 Jul '08

18 Jul '08

Hi there, I'm curious about the plans of Zope 3 on Python 2.5. * Are people using Zope 3 with Python 2.5 already? What are your experiences? * Are there plans for a release after Zope 3.4? I'm just assuming that Zope 3.4.0c1 is actually the only release that Zope 3.4 is going to see. Any plans or interest in a Zope 3.5? * Is someone exercising the "trunk" version of KGS, running the tests to see whether everything works together? Is someone actually updating the versions? Could we somehow broaden the community for this? I'd be nice if we could move Grok to Python 2.5, but it'd be nice to if that were somehow coordinated with Zope 3. What would the policy be for checkins of Zope-related packages? Could we use new Python 2.5 features, for instance? Regards, Martijn

11 33

Itemtraverser and Unauthorized vs Views
by Christian Theune 04 Jul '08

04 Jul '08

Hi, I have a problem with the standard item traverser provided by zope.app.container: The item traverser looks up a object using the given name and a __getitem__ call on the context. If this raises a KeyError it tries to look up a view given the same name. If the user does not have the permission to access __getitem__ it will let the Unauthorized exception pass through. I my situation I have two views for which the user doesn't really need the permission to access __getitem__ on the container but they can't access the views because the __getitem__ call will be tried anyway. I can explicitly make the URL use '@@viewname' and bypass the item traverser, but I don't like the @@s in the URL. I wonder whether adding Unauthorized to the KeyError would be reasonable. Christian -- Christian Theune · ct(a)gocept.com gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 7 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting and development

3 3

Please help the zope.org improvement efforts
by Martin Aspeli 30 Jun '08

30 Jun '08

Hi all, The zope.org "redux" project has slowed down too much lately. I think we are dangerously close to something that's sufficient to go live and would be a huge improvement over the current state of affairs. We just need the last push. In order to do that, we need a little bit of a help from a few people. Please consider helping out at this crucial time. The current site is here: - http://new.zope.org There is a project, which is now open for people to join and browse, here: - http://www.openplans.org/projects/zorg-redux/ I have put up a wiki page that explains the site map and tries to identify what remains. - http://www.openplans.org/projects/zorg-redux/site-map We need: 1. Project co-ordination/management This is/was my role. Unfortunately, I think I'm failing in my responsibilities, and I'd love to hand this over to someone else and step back to become more of a contributor. Due to changes at work, I now have a lot less time than I did when this project was started. This role involves setting some goals, communicating about progress and cajoling people into contributing. It shouldn't be very demanding of time, but it will require some faith in the project and enthusiasm. 2. People to step up and own pages or sections. This means contributing content! 3. Reviewers! I'd like to see one or two people review the whole site for consistency and accuracy. Given that there's only a dozen pages or so, that shouldn't be too hard. Ideally, this should be someone who's been around the bend a few times. Two things are clear right now: Christophe Combelles is a hero, and the rest of us are slacking. :) I think it's feasible to put the site live in 2 months: 1 month to write content, and 1 month to review and sort out logistics. That assumes half a dozen people spending half a day in total each, or thereabouts. That doesn't sound so bad, does it? To move this forward, please: - Volunteer for a section or page by editing the wiki and/or just posting here. - Ask me for a username on new.zope.org if you don't have one already. - Go write! - Report back here. Cheers, Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book

2 2

Zope Tests: 5 OK
by Zope Tests Summarizer 30 Jun '08

30 Jun '08

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Sun Jun 29 11:00:00 2008 UTC to Mon Jun 30 11:00:00 2008 UTC. There were 5 messages: 5 from Zope Tests. Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.8 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Jun 29 21:03:51 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-June/009780.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.9 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Jun 29 21:05:22 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-June/009781.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Jun 29 21:06:52 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-June/009782.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Jun 29 21:08:23 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-June/009783.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Jun 29 21:09:53 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-June/009784.html

1 0

zope.app.keyreference adds IPersistent objects to connections inappropriately? (was: five.intid and DirectoryView)
by Ross Patterson 30 Jun '08

30 Jun '08

In this discussion from another list, Tres suggested that the bug might be in zope.app.keyreference so I'm copying this to the development list. The gist here is that the IPersistent, IObjectAddded event handler will force objects to have connections and makes assumptions about what connection it should get that might not be valid. Here's the thread: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.zope.plone.product-developers/2309 Thoughts? Ross Ross Patterson <me(a)rpatterson.net> writes: > Tres Seaver <tseaver(a)palladion.com> writes: > >> Martijn Pieters wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Ross Patterson <me(a)rpatterson.net> wrote: >>>> "Martijn Pieters" <mj(a)zopatista.com> writes: >>>>> But the code never does that. When cloning a file-based FSObject, a >>>>> new instance is created and that is added to the ZODB. Noone else >>>>> should do this either. >>>> zope.app.keyreference does. The persistence machinery doesn't add an >>>> object to a connection until commit. As such, an IPersistent and >>>> IObjectAdded event handler, such as the one in zope.app.intid, that >>>> needs the object to have a connection needs to add the object to a >>>> connection. >> >> Sounds like a bug in zope.app.intid to me: it shouldn't be forcing >> objects to have connections. >> >>> Why is the IObjectAdded event fired at all? Perhaps that's the bug here. >>> >>>> Shouldn't anything that implements IPersistent be able to be added to a >>>> connection? Wouldn't that be considered part of providing the >>>> interface? Where else is an object that provides IPersistent stored in >>>> global state? >>> >>> I assume it was easier at the time to use just one class. Perhaps this >>> should be reconsidered now. However, just providing the IPersistence >>> interface does not mean the object expects to be added to a connection >>> arbitrarily. >> >> Exactly. Nobody is supposed to add objects to a connection except their >> already-persisted containers. > > That sounds right to me especially given that an object's parent isn't > necessarily "where" the object is persisted. Shouldn't it be possible, > for example, to have a container that looks up it's contained items from > a utility that actually is stored in another ZODB. Such a container's > items would not share their parent's connection. > > FWIW, this happens in zope.app.keyreference. The reason it needs the > object to have a connection is so that it can get the object's _p_oid. > If this is a bug, how can zope.app.keyreference get _p_oid for an object > added in the current, as yet uncommitted transaction? > > Ross > > _______________________________________________ > Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF(a)lists.zope.org > http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf > > See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests

1 0

Zope Tests: 5 OK
by Zope Tests Summarizer 29 Jun '08

29 Jun '08

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Sat Jun 28 11:00:00 2008 UTC to Sun Jun 29 11:00:00 2008 UTC. There were 5 messages: 5 from Zope Tests. Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.8 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat Jun 28 20:58:49 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-June/009775.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.9 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat Jun 28 21:00:19 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-June/009776.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat Jun 28 21:01:49 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-June/009777.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat Jun 28 21:03:20 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-June/009778.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat Jun 28 21:04:50 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-June/009779.html

1 0

Zope Tests: 5 OK
by Zope Tests Summarizer 28 Jun '08

28 Jun '08

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Fri Jun 27 11:00:00 2008 UTC to Sat Jun 28 11:00:00 2008 UTC. There were 5 messages: 5 from Zope Tests. Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.8 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Jun 27 20:55:06 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-June/009770.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.9 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Jun 27 20:56:36 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-June/009771.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Jun 27 20:58:06 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-June/009772.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Jun 27 20:59:36 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-June/009773.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Jun 27 21:01:06 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-June/009774.html

1 0

Release zope.app.container 3.5.4?
by Christian Theune 27 Jun '08

27 Jun '08

Hi, I saw that ccomb fixed bug #227617 a few days ago (thanks!) and that he also backported it to the 3.5 branch. zope.app.container has a couple of bugfixes aggregated already and I'd like to do a release. Any objections? Christian -- Christian Theune · ct(a)gocept.com gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 7 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting and development

2 1

Re: [Checkins] SVN: zope.deprecation/trunk/ Fix zope.deprecation.tests.warn() to have an identical signature to
by Benji York 27 Jun '08

27 Jun '08

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Jan-Wijbrand Kolman <janwijbrand(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Log message for revision 87829: > Fix zope.deprecation.tests.warn() to have an identical signature to > warnings.warn() [snip] > Modified: zope.deprecation/trunk/src/zope/deprecation/tests.py > =================================================================== > --- zope.deprecation/trunk/src/zope/deprecation/tests.py 2008-06-27 13:38:04 UTC (rev 87828) > +++ zope.deprecation/trunk/src/zope/deprecation/tests.py 2008-06-27 14:02:49 UTC (rev 87829) > @@ -43,12 +43,15 @@ > """Demonstrate that deprecate() also works in a local scope.""" > deprecated('demo4', 'demo4 is no more.') > > -def warn(message, type_, stacklevel): > +def warn(message, category=None, stacklevel=1): Of course, if anyone is using keyword arguments to specify type_, then their code will break. I don't think this is worth worrying about, but wanted to point out that it is ever-so-slightly backward incompatible. -- Benji York Senior Software Engineer Zope Corporation

2 1

Zope Tests: 4 OK, 1 Failed
by Zope Tests Summarizer 27 Jun '08

27 Jun '08

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Thu Jun 26 11:00:00 2008 UTC to Fri Jun 27 11:00:00 2008 UTC. There were 5 messages: 5 from Zope Tests. Test failures ------------- Subject: FAILED (errors=1) : Zope-2.8 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Jun 26 21:18:09 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-June/009765.html Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.9 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Jun 26 21:19:39 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-June/009766.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Jun 26 21:21:09 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-June/009767.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Jun 26 21:22:39 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-June/009768.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Jun 26 21:24:10 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-June/009769.html

1 0