May 2009 - Zope-Dev - Zope lists

package dependency refactoring progress report
by Martijn Faassen 25 May '09

25 May '09

Hi there, This is a progress report on the package dependency refactoring work. We've had a lot of people contribute to this process (thanks everybody!), and bit by bit we are able to make a serious impact on dependencies. Yay! Let's take for example zope.app.publisher, which a few weeks ago had a dependency structure like this: http://startifact.com/depgraphs/zope.app.publisher-before.svg (60 dependencies, including zope.app.form and zope.formlib). After a lot of work on a lot of packages, we now have a dependency structure like this: http://startifact.com/depgraphs/zope.app.publisher-after.svg (45 dependencies, no more form related stuff) Still a big graph, but a lot simpler nonetheless, and down 15 packages. So, due to the recent changes we've now managed to cut away zope.app.form and zope.formlib entirely from zope.app.publisher's dependency chain (except for the tests). The main dependency cycles we started out with in the big graph were these: http://startifact.com/depgraphs/zope_app_publisher_cycles.svg After some work we'd gotten it down to this: http://startifact.com/depgraphs/zope_app_publisher_cycles2.svg And by now the main cycles left are these: http://startifact.com/depgraphs/zope_app_publisher_cycles3.svg So, the only dependency cycles left in zope.app.publisher are these: zope.app.publisher <--> zope.app.publication <--> zope.app.http And also this (familiar) one: zope.container <--> zope.filerepresentation I need to do some more analysis to see what other complexities we have in the dependency chain in the ZTK. One obvious set of tasks is to continue evaluating dependencies of things like zope.app.publisher to see whether we cannot take out a few more. Just study the graph and see what can be done by examining the code: http://startifact.com/depgraphs/zope.app.publisher-after.svg For instance, what is zope.app.pagetemplate doing depending on zope.dublincore? What about its direct dependency on zope.container? Another set of tasks is to examine all the test dependencies we have, as those are way more complicated than the main dependencies. Ideally our test dependencies shrink to nothing as well. This will be a hard slog as we rewrite tests, but we can target one dependency at the time, too. Regards, Martijn

5 20

zc.buildout problem
by Adam GROSZER 24 May '09

24 May '09

Hello, Following just happened. The project has KGS 3.4 versions as a base, locally I wanted to override lxml to >= 2.1.1. [...snip...] extends = http://download.zope.org/zope3.4/3.4.0/versions.cfg versions = versions [versions] lxml >= 2.1.1 [...snip...] The bin/buildout -vvvvv output was: Installing 'zc.buildout', 'setuptools'. We have the distribution that satisfies 'zc.buildout==1.1.1'. We have the distribution that satisfies 'setuptools==0.6c9'. [...snip...] Configuration data: [...snip...] [versions] [...snip...] lxml = 1.3.6 lxml > = 2.1.1 [...snip...] Getting required 'lxml==1.3.6' We have the distribution that satisfies 'lxml==1.3.6'. [...snip...] I thought the local [versions] would override the inherited ones? If I put lxml = 2.1.1 buildout nicely picks 2.1.1 Is this a bug? -- Best regards, Adam GROSZER mailto:agroszer@gmail.com -- Quote of the day: Time is nature's way of making sure that everything doesn't happen at once.

3 2

[action required] Zope Contributor Agreement change
by Jens Vagelpohl 24 May '09

24 May '09

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, Please exclude the mass-email, most of you will receive this more than once, we're hoping to catch any current contributor whose email address on zope.org is not current. Anyone who has svn.zope.org checkin privileges and has not received personal email with the content below, please read and follow the instructions, otherwise you may find yourself without access. Thanks! jens - ----------------------------------------------- You may be aware that the copyright for software stored in the software repositories on svn.zope.org has recently been assigned to the Zope Foundation, from the earlier copyright holder Zope Corporation. The old contributor agreements expressly assigned a joint copyright to Zope Corporation for any software checked into svn.zope.org repositories. With the Zope Foundation taking over these copyrights, the agreement with the contributors needs to change so that the Zope Foundation is the joint copyright holder for all new code coming into the repositories. For you as a contributor this means you need to submit a new contributor agreement[1] if you want to stay on as an active contributor to Zope and/or the other software hosted in the repositories on svn.zope.org. Here's how: - - download the new agreement[1] - - fill in the new agreement, and since you are a current contributor it is OK to enter Jim Fulton (jim(a)zope.com) as the required reference committer - - sign and date the agreement - - either scan the agreement and email it to foundation-info(a)zope.org, or fax it to the Zope Foundation fax number +1 (703) 842-8076 To ensure a timely copyright transition we ask you to submit the new contributor agreement no later than June 17, 2009. The Zope Foundation board will try to contact any contributor who has not replied at that point between June 18 and June 26, and on June 26 checkin access will be removed for those who have not sent in the new agreement. Thanks again for your support! Jens Vagelpohl Secretary, Zope Foundation Board of Directors [1] http://foundation.zope.org/agreements/ZopeFoundation_Committer_Agreement -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkoZOwkACgkQRAx5nvEhZLLfxwCglA45Oyk3fIr8uUasH5O4BQc9 VIEAnA2Tdk/Yh3C5bDlnIcaCklcQd/Ci =/wUA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Zope Tests: 8 OK
by Zope Tests Summarizer 24 May '09

24 May '09

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Sat May 23 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Sun May 24 12:00:00 2009 UTC. There were 8 messages: 8 from Zope Tests. Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat May 23 20:47:53 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-May/011777.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat May 23 20:49:56 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-May/011778.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat May 23 20:52:04 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-May/011779.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.5.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat May 23 20:54:04 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-May/011780.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.6.1 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat May 23 20:56:04 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-May/011781.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat May 23 20:58:06 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-May/011782.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.5.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat May 23 21:00:06 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-May/011783.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.1 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat May 23 21:02:08 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-May/011784.html

1 0

Re: [Zope-dev] z3c.form 2.0 release?
by Malthe Borch 24 May '09

24 May '09

Hello Adam, –– The z3c.pt package shouldn't have difficult dependencies; it depends on zope.i18n >= 3.5 but reasons unknown to me (Hanno CC'ed). Note that the package no longer depends on ``lxml``. \malthe

4 9

Zope Tests: 8 OK
by Zope Tests Summarizer 23 May '09

23 May '09

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Fri May 22 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Sat May 23 12:00:00 2009 UTC. There were 8 messages: 8 from Zope Tests. Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri May 22 20:53:08 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-May/011769.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri May 22 20:55:10 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-May/011770.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri May 22 20:57:14 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-May/011771.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.5.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri May 22 20:59:14 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-May/011772.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.6.1 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri May 22 21:01:15 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-May/011773.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri May 22 21:03:21 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-May/011774.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.5.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri May 22 21:05:24 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-May/011775.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.1 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri May 22 21:07:31 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-May/011776.html

1 0

Another OFS.Traversable and ZPublisher inconsistency
by Martin Aspeli 23 May '09

23 May '09

Hi, So, we determined that OFS.Traversable's unrestrictedTraverse() shouldn't grow support for IPublishTraverse, which is fair enough. We're now using an ITraversable adapter instead (++namespace++). However, we found another inconsistency. In URL traversal, this works: /foo/bar/++namespace++/123 In OFS.Traversable, it doesn't, but this does: /foo/bar/++namespace++blah/123 The reason is that in restrictedTraverse(), we have this check: if name and name[:1] in '@+' and name != '+' and nsParse(name)[1]: ns, nm = nsParse(name) However, nsParse(name)[1] is '' if no name is provided after the namespace. In BaseRequest.traverseName() we have a similar, but more relaxed check: if name and name[:1] in '@+' ns, nm = nsParse(name) if ns: ... This also has the advantage of not calling nsParse() twice. I can't understand why OFS.Traversable would explicitly disallow namespace traversal with an empty string as the name. Is this on purpose, or a bug? Cheers, Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book

1 0

zope.mimetype 1.1.2 release
by Alexander J Smith 22 May '09

22 May '09

I just released a new version of zope.mimetype. This version no longer depends on zope.app.component directly. -- Alex Smith Software Engineer Zope Corporation

1 0

zope.app.publisher 3.7.0 release
by Alexander J Smith 22 May '09

22 May '09

I just released a new version of zope.app.publisher. The changes in this version are largely related to reducing dependencies on zope.app.component and zope.app.container. -- Alex Smith Software Engineer Zope Corporation

2 1

zope.app.publication dependencies (volunteers needed!)
by Martijn Faassen 22 May '09

22 May '09

Hi there, zope.app.publisher is depended on by quite a bit of code that uses the Zope Toolkit, as it defines brower:view and browser:resource and the like. Unfortunately zope.app.publisher currently depends on more than 60 packages. This is rather excessive, and we'd like to cut down on this. Also interesting about zope.app.publisher is that while it defines a 'browser' directory it actually doesn't contain any ZMI code; instead ZCML directives are defined there. Refactoring so the ZMI isn't around anymore is usually a good first step, but that's not needed here. If you look at the dependency graph for zope.app.publisher the task of fixing this looks daunting: http://startifact.com/depgraphs/zope.app.publisher.svg But now please observe the following: http://startifact.com/depgraphs/zope_app_publisher_cycles.svg This identifies the main cycles in that dependency graph. If we break those in the right way, we can cut down a lot of dependencies in one go. Getting rid of the zope.app.form and zope.formlib dependencies looks like a sensible step. From this little graph, it looks clear we could do some of the following things (research is needed to see how difficult they are): * cut the dependency of zope.app.publisher on zope.app.component * OR cut the dependency of zope.app.component on zope.formlib * cut the dependency of zope.app.publisher on zope.app.publication * OR cut the dependency of zope.app.component on zope.app.security * cut the dependency of zope.app.publisher on zope.app.publication * OR cut the dependency of zope.app.publication on zope.app.exception * OR cut the dependency of zope.app.exception on zope.formlib There are probably a few more options there, but given that small graph, you get the picture. Any volunteers to do this research on how hard some of these steps would look and report back here? Once we've discussed the options we can proceed fixing the problem. Regards, Martijn

9 28