July 2009 - Zope-Dev

Some thoughts on KGS
by Jim Fulton 08 Aug '09

08 Aug '09

I think the KGS should define 3 categories of packages: - ZTK packages These are packages we maintain and expect people to build things on. - Test packages These are packages that build on the ZTK. These are used to test the ZTK packages, but aren't part of the ZTK. - dependencies of ZTK packages or test packages. Note that the ZTK should probably avoid non-third-party dependencies that are not part of the ZTK. There are some fuzzy cases, like ZODB and ZConfig. I propose that any test infrastructure we come up with needs to handle these 3 cases. In any cases, the test infrastructure needs to fix version for all of the categories of packages and there needs to be a formal process (uh, like tests passing :) for updating the configuration. Jim -- Jim Fulton Zope Corporation

2 3

Zope Tests: 3 OK, 5 Failed
by Zope Tests Summarizer 08 Aug '09

08 Aug '09

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Fri Jul 17 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Sat Jul 18 12:00:00 2009 UTC. There were 8 messages: 8 from Zope Tests. Test failures ------------- Subject: FAILED (failures=1) : Zope-2.12 Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Jul 17 20:50:00 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-July/012082.html Subject: FAILED (failures=1) : Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Jul 17 20:52:00 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-July/012083.html Subject: FAILED (failures=7) : Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Jul 17 20:54:01 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-July/012084.html Subject: FAILED (failures=1) : Zope-trunk Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Jul 17 20:56:01 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-July/012085.html Subject: FAILED (failures=7) : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Jul 17 20:58:01 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-July/012086.html Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Jul 17 20:44:00 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-July/012079.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Jul 17 20:46:00 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-July/012080.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Jul 17 20:48:00 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-July/012081.html

8 20

Breaking the dep cycle between zope.{container, filerepresentation}
by Fabio Tranchitella 06 Aug '09

06 Aug '09

Hello, I would like to break the dep cycle between zope.container and zope.filerepresentation. I already prepared the two patches (attached to this e-mail), but I'm not confident enough with the zope3 repository to check in them without asking for comments. Is this the right way to break the dependency? I think nobody really uses zope.filerepresentation, so transforming it into a dummy package which just imports things from zope.container.interface is ok. Thanks in advance, Fabio

4 6

zope.app.module, zope.app.interface and zodb in KGS?
by Jim Fulton 06 Aug '09

06 Aug '09

zope.app.module provides support for persistemt modules. zope.app.interface provides support for persistent interfaces. Both rely on a highly experimental zodbcode. I don't have a problem with these being projects, but I don't think they should be in the KGS. I don't think we should commit to supporting them, at least not as part of the KGS. Does anyone disagree? Jim -- Jim Fulton Zope Corporation

3 5

z3c.jsonrpc and zope3.4 egg versions
by Gustavo Rahal 31 Jul '09

31 Jul '09

Hello I'm trying to use z3c.jsonrpc with Zope3.4 but I'm encountering problems with imports that z3c.jsonrpc does from zope.publisher. >From http://download.zope.org/zope3.4/3.4.0/versions.cfg I see that zope.publisher for zope3.4 is 3.4.6 but the latest version of zope.publisher from svn is 3.8.0. >From reading the "Changes" section of http://pypi.python.org/pypi/z3c.jsonrpc it seems like version 0.5.3 did changes to cope with changes of zope.publisher newer versions (newer then what comes with zope3.4). I haven't tried but I imagine that if I downgrade z3c.jsonrpc to version 0.5.2 things might work but then some questions came into my mind as i'm new to zope3 and buildout/eggs world. 1. Am I looking things in the wrong way or zope 3 components don't necessary follow the stable release of zope3 but rather a zope component version (in this case z3c.jsonrpc is following zope.publisher not zope3.4) 2. If 1 is true, I imagine that whenever I try a zope3 component It's a trial and error adventure and it's not guaranteed that developer is following zope3 versions. 3. If 2 is true, isn't there a better way to do things? :) Appreciate some help Thanks -- Gustavo Matheus Rahal IBM Linux Technology Center

1 0

Zope Tests: 3 OK, 5 Failed
by Zope Tests Summarizer 31 Jul '09

31 Jul '09

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Thu Jul 30 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Fri Jul 31 12:00:00 2009 UTC. There were 8 messages: 8 from Zope Tests. Test failures ------------- Subject: FAILED (failures=1) : Zope-2.12 Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Jul 30 20:50:18 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-July/012186.html Subject: FAILED (failures=1) : Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Jul 30 20:52:18 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-July/012187.html Subject: FAILED (failures=7) : Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Jul 30 20:54:18 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-July/012188.html Subject: FAILED (failures=1) : Zope-trunk Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Jul 30 20:56:18 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-July/012189.html Subject: FAILED (failures=7) : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Jul 30 20:58:18 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-July/012190.html Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Jul 30 20:44:17 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-July/012183.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Jul 30 20:46:17 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-July/012184.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Jul 30 20:48:17 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-July/012185.html

1 0

Integrating Five code properly into Zope2?
by Hanno Schlichting 30 Jul '09

30 Jul '09

Hi. I'd like to push code and ZCML from Products.Five into the appropriate places in Zope2. For example event.zcml registering events for OFS items, should live in the OFS package. i18n.zcml setting up stuff for the request or the publisher should live in the ZPublisher package, security bridging code for zope.security vs. AccessControl should go into AccessControl, test setup and support code should live in Testing, ... startup code and site.zcml handling should live in the Zope2.Startup package and so on. There's probably some bridging code left in Five which has no real place to go in Zope2. Like formlib wrapping / bridging code - I'd leave this in Five for the time being until we get a clearer picture of what is actually left in there. Given our current deprecation policy, I'd leave indefinite backwards compatibility imports in place and do the same for ZCML files. It would be work targeted at the lucky numbered Zope 2.13 ;-) Do people generally agree with this direction? Hanno P.S. Maybe this would allow one day to remove the Five package again from the main Zope2 distribution, ... maybe :)

5 6

Zope Tests: 3 OK, 5 Failed
by Zope Tests Summarizer 30 Jul '09

30 Jul '09

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Wed Jul 29 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Thu Jul 30 12:00:00 2009 UTC. There were 8 messages: 8 from Zope Tests. Test failures ------------- Subject: FAILED (failures=1) : Zope-2.12 Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Jul 29 20:50:56 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-July/012178.html Subject: FAILED (failures=1) : Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Jul 29 20:52:56 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-July/012179.html Subject: FAILED (failures=7) : Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Jul 29 20:54:56 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-July/012180.html Subject: FAILED (failures=1) : Zope-trunk Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Jul 29 20:56:56 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-July/012181.html Subject: FAILED (failures=7) : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Jul 29 20:58:56 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-July/012182.html Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Jul 29 20:44:56 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-July/012175.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Jul 29 20:46:56 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-July/012176.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Jul 29 20:48:56 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-July/012177.html

1 0

Zope Tests: 3 OK, 5 Failed
by Zope Tests Summarizer 29 Jul '09

29 Jul '09

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Tue Jul 28 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Wed Jul 29 12:00:00 2009 UTC. There were 8 messages: 8 from Zope Tests. Test failures ------------- Subject: FAILED (failures=1) : Zope-2.12 Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Jul 28 20:55:33 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-July/012170.html Subject: FAILED (failures=1) : Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Jul 28 20:57:33 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-July/012171.html Subject: FAILED (failures=7) : Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Jul 28 20:59:34 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-July/012172.html Subject: FAILED (failures=1) : Zope-trunk Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Jul 28 21:01:34 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-July/012173.html Subject: FAILED (failures=7) : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Jul 28 21:03:34 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-July/012174.html Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Jul 28 20:49:33 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-July/012167.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Jul 28 20:51:33 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-July/012168.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Jul 28 20:53:33 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-July/012169.html

1 0

unregistering persistent utilities
by David Glick 29 Jul '09

29 Jul '09

Is there a recommended way or example code somewhere for removing a utility registration from a persistent component registry, when that utility's module no longer exists? The use case is in Plone, which has a local zope.app.cache.ram.IRAMCache utility. Now that Hanno has factored out the RAM cache into zope.ramcache, we'd like the persistent utility to reference zope.ramcache, so that we can remove our zope.app.cache dependency. I've been trying to make this work using a temporary module alias (code below), but something strange is going on. In particular, unghosting the persistent utilities registry is affecting things somehow...before that happens, doing a repr of IRAMCache gives: (Pdb) zope.app.cache.interfaces.ram.IRAMCache <InterfaceClass zope.ramcache.interfaces.ram.IRAMCache> ...(what I'd expect, I guess, given my module alias)...but after the registry is unghosted, it gives: (Pdb) zope.app.cache.interfaces.ram.IRAMCache <InterfaceClass zope.app.cache.interfaces.ram.IRAMCache> ...(which is what I'm actually hoping for, in order to unregister the old utility)...but then I also get: (Pdb) zope.ramcache.interfaces.ram.IRAMCache <InterfaceClass zope.app.cache.interfaces.ram.IRAMCache> ...(e.g., now accessing it via the new module gives a class that thinks its in the old module) Sorry for the rather muddled description, but I haven't been able to really understand what's going on there yet. So what am I missing or doing wrong? Is there a better way to go about this? def relocateRamCacheUtility(portal): # temporary module alias try: import zope.app.cache old_zope_app_cache = zope.app.cache except ImportError: old_zope_app_cache = None import zope.ramcache zope.app.cache = sys.modules['zope.app.cache'] = zope.ramcache sm = getSiteManager(context=portal) # make sure the persistent utilities registry is unghosted before we # reference the old interface name, as it seems to make a difference in # whether it can be unregistered (WTF?) sm.utilities.changed component = sm.getUtility(zope.app.cache.interfaces.ram.IRAMCache) sm.unregisterUtility(component=component, provided=zope.app.cache.interfaces.ram.IRAMCache) import zope.ramcache import pdb; pdb.set_trace( ) sm.registerUtility(factory=zope.ramcache.ram.RAMCache, provided=zope.ramcache.interfaces.ram.IRAMCache) logger.info('Updated the import location of the local IRAMCache utility.') # reset the module alias zope.app.cache = sys.modules['zope.app.cache'] = old_zope_app_cache thanks, David Glick Web Developer ONE/Northwest New tools and strategies for engaging people in protecting the environment http://www.onenw.org davidglick(a)onenw.org work: (206) 286-1235 x32 mobile: (206) 679-3833 Subscribe to ONEList, our email newsletter! Practical advice for effective online engagement http://www.onenw.org/full_signup

2 1