July 2008 - Zope-Dev

Zope Tests: 5 OK
by Zope Tests Summarizer 18 Jul '08

18 Jul '08

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Thu Jul 17 11:00:00 2008 UTC to Fri Jul 18 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: Thu Jul 17 21:01:24 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-July/009870.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.9 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Jul 17 21:02:57 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-July/009871.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Jul 17 21:04:27 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-July/009872.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Jul 17 21:05:57 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-July/009873.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Jul 17 21:07:27 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-July/009874.html

1 0

Re: Buildout site
by Ethan Jucovy 18 Jul '08

18 Jul '08

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Martijn Faassen <faassen(a)startifact.com> wrote: >> Just FYI, the final resting place for this information will likely be >> inside a more general documentation website, the address buildout.zope.org >> is just a temporary resting place. > > Just to make a discussion Jens and I were having in the background explicit. > > While it's good if this appears in the "Zope stack" documentation site, I > think it's also important for there being a separate identity for the > buildout project. This goes beyond documentation, but also talks about a > developer community and invites people to use it in their own projects, as > well as contribute. I also think an overview of recipes could be a good part > of this. > > I think a separate website is part of such an identity. Other things that > could help establish an identity are things like a logo. I think this is a really fantastic idea. To speak broadly, it's great that you're so mindful of the real importance of identity -- in both a "branding" sense and simply in the sense of being a self-contained entity -- for the development of software communities and software itself. Buildout is a standalone product independent of the Zope framework or libraries, but that's only meaningful if it actively establishes an independent identity in people's minds. I think you're doing a really great thing for the community by paying attention to these issues. So, in short, thanks. :) Cheers, Ethan > > Regards, > > Martijn > > _______________________________________________ > Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev(a)zope.org > http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev > ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** > (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce > http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ) >

1 0

repoze.bfg
by Chris McDonough 18 Jul '08

18 Jul '08

I've been working on a new web framework named (provisionally) repoze.bfg. The relevant README is here: http://svn.repoze.org/repoze.bfg/trunk/README.txt It is essentially a "Zope lite". It is Zope-ish in that: - it uses a lot of Zope libraries and concepts (interfaces, some CA constructs, ZCML) - it uses graph-traversal-based URL dispatch. - by default it provides ZPT (actually z3c.pt) templates. - it provides built-in authorization facilities based on permissions and users/groups. It is unlike Zope (variously 2 or 3) inasmuch as: - It uses a different publisher and authorization model. - It is heavily dependent on WSGI. - Its equivalent of the publisher doesn't attempt to traverse into *code* stored in the object graph. All code is on the filesystem. The only thing in the object graph is "model" data. - It doesn't attempt to provide any server functionality. This duty is left over to WSGI. - It doesn't provide *authentication* functionality (just authorization functionality). Authentication is left up to upstream server/middleware (e.g. repoze.who). - It's not meant to be "plugged in to". A repoze.bfg application is not a plugin to repoze.bfg (e.g. it's not a Zope2 Product). Instead, a repoze.bfg application is just a Python package that happens to use repoze.bfg facilities. - The graph root is not effectively assumed to be a ZODB database. - It provides no built-in through-the-web management interface. It's unlike Grok inasmuch as: - It doesn't try to hide ZCML for configuration. If I were to characterize it succintly and informally, I migh say it's a bit like Django built around graph traversal dispatch instead of URL-based dispatch. Speed is a priority. A "hello world" template is currently clocking in at around 550 req/sec on my MacBook (including security lookups). It's my intent to continue to develop it, along with a package named "repoze.lemonade", which will integrate repoze.bfg with ZODB and provide various persistence-related features (folders, object events, indexing and so forth). In any case, I thought maybe some folks would be interested in using/contributing to it. It can be checked out via: svn co http://svn.repoze.org/repoze.bfg/trunk/ Thanks, - C

6 18

zope.app.container 3.5.4 bugfix release
by Christophe Combelles 17 Jul '08

17 Jul '08

I've added a tag for the 3.5.4 bugfix release of zope.app.container. Could someone please add me on the owners list on pypi so that I can upload it? thanks, Christophe

2 4

how do you run the zc.buildout test suite?
by Chris McDonough 17 Jul '08

17 Jul '08

How is zc.buildout meant to have its tests run? On Mac OS X, in a checkout from svn+ssh://svn.zope.org/repos/main/zc.buildout/trunk Doing: $ python2.4 bootstrap/bootstrap.py $ bin/buildout results in: [chrism@vitaminf-2 zc.buildout]$ bin/buildout Develop: '/Users/chrism/projects/zc.buildout/zc.recipe.egg_' Develop: '/Users/chrism/projects/zc.buildout/.' While: Installing. Getting section test2.3. Initializing part test2.3. Getting section python2.3. Error: The referenced section, 'python2.3', was not defined. And doing: $ python2.4 setup.py test -q gives me a raft of test failures, which leads me to believe the tests weren't meant to be run this way. What's the right way to run the test suite? - C

2 1

Buildout site
by Baiju M 17 Jul '08

17 Jul '08

Hi all, Few weeks back Buildout site become live, Jens Vagelpohl setup the site at http://buildout.zope.org/ But I couldn't work further on the site. If anyone want contribute to the content please add it here: svn co svn://svn.zope.org/repos/main/buildout-website/trunk/ Regards, Baiju M

3 3

transaction.doom() and ZPublisher
by Paul Winkler 17 Jul '08

17 Jul '08

Hi, I noticed that Zope 2.11 includes a recent version of the transaction module including the transaction.doom() method. But I don't see any check for it in ZPublisher. So, if any code calls transaction.doom(), the publisher will raise a user-visible exception when it tries to call commit(). This seems less than useful :-) In the discussion I've seen of this method, eg. https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope3/+bug/98382 and http://markmail.org/message/3yshpmltvhevnrff it sounds like other people share my expectation... namely, that the developer should not have to do anything special after calling transaction.doom(); the transaction is not committed, and the user won't see an exception. Is that the concensus? If so, there's an easy solution - apply something like the attached patch. Anybody disagree? -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com

4 6

Zope Tests: 5 OK
by Zope Tests Summarizer 17 Jul '08

17 Jul '08

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Wed Jul 16 11:00:00 2008 UTC to Thu Jul 17 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: Wed Jul 16 20:57:23 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-July/009865.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.9 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Jul 16 20:58:53 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-July/009866.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Jul 16 21:00:23 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-July/009867.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Jul 16 21:01:54 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-July/009868.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Jul 16 21:03:24 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-July/009869.html

1 0

Re: [Repoze-dev] Z2.9 incompatibilites with tarballs on dist.repoze.org
by Chris McDonough 16 Jul '08

16 Jul '08

Chris McDonough wrote: > Alan Milligan wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm in the midst of rolling repoze out on our BastionLinux RPM's (at >> https://linux.last-bastion.net/LBN/up2date/plope/6 (repoze.* and zope.*) >> for *exactly* what files and versions are being shipped). >> >> We're at zope-2.9.9, the latest release that runs up plone-2.5.x. I've >> thus packaged up the required components on >> http://dist.repoze.org/zope2/2.9/ >> >> However, the zope.interface-3.4.0 is from a later version of Z3 than >> ships with Z2 (I think this is still at 3.3) and when zope.app.component >> from the Z2 tree is invoked through paster, it dies horribly when it >> can't find zope.interface.adapter.Surrogate - which appears to have >> vanished between releases. Downgrading to zope.interface-3.3.0, as >> shipped with zope-2.9.9 fixes this (insofar as zope2.wsgi now runs up >> from the command line). > > Eek. You're right. I mispackaged. The zope.interface version up there now is > the 3.2 version that ships with Zope 2.9. We maintain multiple indexes, and we > haven't yet automated a buildbot to test them so it's exceedingly difficult to > make sure they all work at all times. Apologies. > >> Similarly, the ZODB3 version (3.7.2) is later than that shipped in >> zope-2.9.9. I don't expect any issues with this (yet at least) as I'm >> running vanilla zeo from zope-2.9.9 > > That doesn't cause any problem in our testing. > >> Is this anomaly simply due to hoping that nobody will notice if the >> Z2.10 tarballs are foisted on Z2.9 users - or indeed are these genuinely >> required, and I'm about to enter module import hell? > > No, I think you should be good now with the new distribution. Thanks for the > notification. > >> Note that the zope.proxy and zope.testing tarballs are similarly >> incorrect, but they too appear benign. > > I also believe these are benign. > > I'm currently running an easy_install to make sure. Well it *would* have worked if easy_install didn't go off to download.zope.org to find the latest zope.interface package due to a promiscuous distribution_links in the ZODB package. See also http://plope.com/Members/chrism/distribution_links_considered_harmful .. Ugh. I'll need to re-roll that ZODB egg without the dependency-links and put it up there. I'll post when that's done. - C _______________________________________________ Repoze-dev mailing list Repoze-dev(a)lists.repoze.org http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev

1 0

Re: [Checkins] SVN: zope.i18n/branches/regebro-pluralsupport/src/zope/i18n/ Changed the API. It's unwieldy as it is, so better have separate methods
by Lennart Regebro 16 Jul '08

16 Jul '08

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 20:22, Stephan Richter <srichter(a)cosmos.phy.tufts.edu> wrote: > On Wednesday 16 July 2008, Lennart Regebro wrote: >> Log message for revision 88417: >> Changed the API. It's unwieldy as it is, so better have separate method >> for plurals. > > It looks to me as if you only support one singular and one plural form. Nope. Although I currently only test that case. > I have read some commentary a long time ago, that some languages, like Polish, have > multiple plural forms. Is that supported? Should be, but it's not tested yet. While talking about this, what would a ZPT implementation of this best look like? An i18n:count statement that takes expressions? <p i18n:translate="" i18n:count="view/file_count">There are %d files</p> Or? -- Lennart Regebro: Zope and Plone consulting. http://www.colliberty.com/ +33 661 58 14 64

3 6