November 2009 - Zope-Dev

Zope Tests: 6 OK
by Zope Tests Summarizer 04 Nov '09

04 Nov '09

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Tue Nov 3 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Wed Nov 4 12:00:00 2009 UTC. There were 6 messages: 6 from Zope Tests. Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Nov 3 20:38:39 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-November/012950.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Nov 3 20:40:39 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-November/012951.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12 Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Nov 3 20:42:39 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-November/012952.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Nov 3 20:44:39 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-November/012953.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Nov 3 20:46:39 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-November/012954.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Nov 3 20:48:39 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-November/012955.html

1 0

Where does ISite belong conceptually?
by Thomas Lotze 04 Nov '09

04 Nov '09

While writing tests for the zope.site.hooks module I'm moving to zope.component, I notice that the module calls getSiteManager() on an site object. Such an object isn't technically required to implement an interface that declares that method, but there is one, or rather a pair of them: IPossibleSite and ISite. These interfaces are currently defined by zope.location even though they aren't involved with the concept of location at all. As these two interfaces have the same concept of a site that zope.component has (i.e. simply an object that has a component registry associated with it), I propose moving IPossibleSite and ISite to zope.component, leaving BBB imports behind. Any objections? -- Thomas

5 7

A note on the PyCon Program committee.
by Lennart Regebro 03 Nov '09

03 Nov '09

I was on the PyCon-PC this and last year. Unfortunately, I had less time this year, and the workload was higher, and the time shorter, so they were forced to have many meetings in the middle of the night, my time. So I spend way too little time on it. That pretty much meant that the only other guy doing Zope on the program PC is Brandon, and he is a busy guy too. The result of this was that yesterday it looked like almost no Zope talks would be accepted, because during the last weeding out of talks (there was WAY too many really good talks this year) they all ended up in different groups, and got voted out. This is mainly because those who did the grouping didn't understand that talks about to various Zope-related technologies like Repoze, BFG and the component architecture are at least somewhat related, so they ended up in different groups, and then they don't understand why things like component architectures are important, so the talks get voted out. I was unfortunately on a Plane during the last meeting yesterday, back home from the PloneConf, so I wasn't on that meeting, but what I gather from todays emails and the stats on the talks site, the situation has been ameliorated, so there will be at least some Zope talks, I think. But it was a close call. What to do? Easy: We need more people from the Zope community on the PyCon program committee. Next year, when the talks for 2011 gets decided, there seriously have to be more Zope people in the PC, especially people in US timezone and involved with or closely following all the new things that's happening. The Zope community is pushing a lot of the development in the Python world and is continuing to be the source of much innovation, we shouldn't let that run out in the sand just because the rest of the Python community lags behind us a year. ;-) Obviously, if you join next year, you should still keep a cool head and look at it objectively, we do not want the PC being swamped by people who only will vote for Zope talks. We just need a couple of more people who know what the Zope/BFG/ZTK talks are about and have time to sit through the meetings (who are on IRC). Besides, even though the PC was much bigger this year, the number of submissions was much greater too, so the workload was still too high, so the PC will most likely still need more people in general. ---------- I will also say, that if your Zope-related talk isn't accepted (I think the notifications of who are accepted and who aren't are going to go out soon) do not feel disheartened. There was way more submissions this year. Last year, we only needed to cut a few high quality talks (I seem to remember that it was three). This year, loads of them has been cut. I think there was almost the same amount of talks deemed worthy of PyCon this year as it was submissions in total last year. Last year, about two thirds was accepted, this time less than half, despite what I feel is a generally higher quality of submissions. Getting a talk accepted to PyCon 2010 was doubtlessly hard, and many good talks has been rejected. And I'm not saying that to make people feel good, but because it is true. -- Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64

7 12

CMF/Zope3-ZTK Microsites
by Andreas Jung 03 Nov '09

03 Nov '09

Hi there, I am currently working on the plan for the www.zope.org relaunch. Rough ideas are documented here: http://www.coactivate.org/projects/wwwzopeorg-relaunch/project-home Regarding the Zope3/ZTK and CMF subprojects: what are the plans of those subjects for moving to dedicated microsites. We have basically two options: - microsites based on Sphinx - something based on Plone >From the look & feel point of view there are basically two options: a) use the current zope2.zope.org design b) use the upcoming www.zope.org design (undecided right now) Please let me know in order to incorporate yours ideas and plans with the www.zope.org relaunch master plan. Andreas -- ZOPYX Ltd. & Co KG \ ZOPYX & Friends Charlottenstr. 37/1 \ The experts for your Python, Zope and D-72070 Tübingen \ Plone projects www.zopyx.com, info(a)zopyx.com \ www.zopyx.de/friends, friends(a)zopyx.de ------------------------------------------------------------------------ E-Publishing, Python, Zope & Plone development, Consulting

3 4

Zope Tests: 6 OK
by Zope Tests Summarizer 03 Nov '09

03 Nov '09

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Mon Nov 2 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Tue Nov 3 12:00:00 2009 UTC. There were 6 messages: 6 from Zope Tests. Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Mon Nov 2 20:39:13 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-November/012944.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Mon Nov 2 20:41:13 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-November/012945.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12 Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Mon Nov 2 20:43:13 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-November/012946.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Mon Nov 2 20:45:13 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-November/012947.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Mon Nov 2 20:47:13 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-November/012948.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Mon Nov 2 20:49:14 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-November/012949.html

1 0

Zope Tests: 6 OK, 2 Failed
by Zope Tests Summarizer 03 Nov '09

03 Nov '09

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Fri Oct 30 13:00:00 2009 UTC to Sat Oct 31 13:00:00 2009 UTC. There were 8 messages: 8 from Zope Tests. Test failures ------------- Subject: FAILED (failures=1) : Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Oct 30 21:52:06 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-October/012923.html Subject: FAILED (failures=1) : Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Oct 30 21:56:07 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-October/012925.html Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Oct 30 21:46:05 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-October/012920.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Oct 30 21:48:05 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-October/012921.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Oct 30 21:50:06 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-October/012922.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12 Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Oct 30 21:54:06 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-October/012924.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Oct 30 21:58:07 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-October/012926.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Oct 30 22:00:07 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-October/012927.html

7 6

Zope Tests: 7 OK, 1 Failed
by Zope Tests Summarizer 02 Nov '09

02 Nov '09

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Sun Nov 1 13:00:00 2009 UTC to Mon Nov 2 13:00:00 2009 UTC. There were 8 messages: 8 from Zope Tests. Test failures ------------- Subject: FAILED (failures=1) : Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Nov 1 20:52:01 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-November/012939.html Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Nov 1 20:46:01 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-November/012936.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Nov 1 20:48:01 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-November/012937.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Nov 1 20:50:01 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-November/012938.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12 Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Nov 1 20:54:01 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-November/012940.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Nov 1 20:56:01 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-November/012941.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Nov 1 20:58:01 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-November/012942.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Nov 1 21:00:02 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-November/012943.html

1 0

Zope Tests: 7 OK, 1 Failed
by Zope Tests Summarizer 01 Nov '09

01 Nov '09

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Sat Oct 31 13:00:00 2009 UTC to Sun Nov 1 13:00:00 2009 UTC. There were 8 messages: 8 from Zope Tests. Test failures ------------- Subject: FAILED (failures=1) : Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat Oct 31 21:51:55 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-October/012931.html Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat Oct 31 21:45:54 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-October/012928.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat Oct 31 21:47:55 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-October/012929.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat Oct 31 21:49:55 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-October/012930.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12 Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat Oct 31 21:53:55 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-October/012932.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat Oct 31 21:55:56 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-October/012933.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat Oct 31 21:57:56 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-October/012934.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat Oct 31 21:59:56 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-October/012935.html

1 0

proposal: Custom schema properties
by Adam GROSZER 01 Nov '09

01 Nov '09

Hello, Custom schema properties proposal ================================= The problem ------------ is that we have a "baseline" project. This baseline project gets customized for each client. Each client has different (usually just a little bit) needs in terms of field titles and field required. The real problem is, to achieve this we have to create a new interface with the overridden field. This starts the domino effect, we have to create a new class, this new class needs to be instantiated, new add form, new edit form and register those. A hell lot of code to support that tiny change. The solution ------------ would be to have default schema properties defined as "usual" (depending on the implementation the field object would come from a different package). Those defaults can be overridden by "Interface.fieldName" and site (by utility or adapter lookup). Seems like fields that are not overridden in the interface subclasses might not be overridden. Further goal could be to have these customizations easily modified TTW. That somehow suggest that an adapter registration for each property customization is a no-go. Performance Performance needs to be as close as possible to the plain schema implementation. I guess field properties get evaluated quite often per request, an adapter/utility lookup per property evaluation is a no-go. I'd say zope.schema classes should stay as they are, the custom schema will be done using subclasses. Dependencies If no additional dependencies will be added to zope.schema the implementation could go into zope.schema.custom if yes z3c.schema.custom could be the place. Opinions? Anyone suffering the same problems? Up to now this is just a draft, more checking and tinkering to be done at the ploneconf2009-ZTK sprint. -- Best regards, Adam GROSZER mailto:agroszer@gmail.com -- Quote of the day: They just buzzed and buzzed.....buzzed.

5 4