March 2010 - Zope-Dev

Manuel Beta
by Benji York 14 Jan '11

14 Jan '11

I've just released the first beta of Manuel, my next-generation doctest project. Being that zope-dev has some of the most well-informed users of doctest (and some of the most well-informed non-users of doctest), I'd like to gather feedback from this group before making an announcement to the wider world. Manuel is available from PyPI (http://pypi.python.org/pypi/manuel) with docs, details, and examples at http://packages.python.org/manuel/. I'm interested in any feedback and/or questions you may have be it technical, documentation, or "marketing" (i.e., how do I describe what Manuel does and what benefits it has). -- Benji York Senior Software Engineer Zope Corporation

5 12

zope.dublincore and zope.copypastemove not compatible?
by Michael Howitz 14 Sep '10

14 Sep '10

Hi, I found something strange in metadata when copying a persistent object. My situation is the following: I have a container with some elements inside. I create a copy of this container using zope.copypastemove.ObjectCopier(my_container).copyTo(my_container.__parent__) (Actually I use zope.copypastemove.interfaces.IObjectCopier(my_container) but this calls the adapter mentioned above.) Side note: Is this the right way to copy an persistent object nowadays? This happens tho dublin core metadata then: As zope.dublincore.timeannotators.CreatedAnnotator is subscribed to zope.lifecycleevent.IObjectCreatedEvent it gets called as the ObjectCopiedEvent is a subclass of ObjectCreatedEvent. The copy of the container gets a new creation date set in its metadata. But zope.copypastemove.dispatchToSublocations calls the subscribers for the sublocations using zope.component.subscribers((sub, event), None) So the zope.dublincore.timeannotators.CreatedAnnotator does not get called as it is not registered for (object, event) but only for (event,). This leads to a strange situation: the metadata of the copied container get updated but not the metadata of its contents. This behavior has not changed since version 3.4.0 which was about 2,5 years ago. I think this is a long-standing bug and it should it be fixed in zope.dublincore by registering the subscribers for (object, event)? (Additionally or exclusively, I'm not sure.) Any thoughts? Yours sincerely, -- Michael Howitz · mh(a)gocept.com · software developer gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 8 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting and development

1 3

vocabularies missing wihtout zope.app.schema
by Roger 22 Jul '10

22 Jul '10

Hi all I'm not happy with the current vocabulary registry concept. Some zope.* packages provide vocabularies as zope.schema.interfaces.IVocabularyFactory utilities. The current zope.schema vocabulary registry without the patch located in zope.app.schema can't lookup such vocabulary factory utilities. Which concept should the ZTK use? The plain vocabulary from zope.schema.vocabulary or the enhanced component lookupbased concept defined in zope.app.schema.vocabulary? Any hints how we should improve that? Regards Roger Ineichen _____________________________ END OF MESSAGE

6 7

zope.app.authentication
by Souheil CHELFOUH 02 Jul '10

02 Jul '10

Hello guys, I'm coding some stuff, using zope.app.authentication and this package appears to do too many things, in my opinion. Would it be wise to cut off some of the functionalities ? The pure PAU components could go in a dedicated package, like zope.pluggableauthservice The whole handling of principals, groups and folder makes it a bit hard to read and introduces a lot of redundancy if we wish to roll our own things. What do you guys think ? Cheers - Souheil

5 13

Wanted: representatives from Zope 2, grok, and BlueBream to engineer ZTK 1.0 release
by Christian Theune 20 Apr '10

20 Apr '10

Hi everyone, on the way towards a ZTK 1.0 release we first looked for a single volunteer release manager who would drive the process. As no one stepped up and no (serious) nominations were presented the discussion went back to the drawing board and the plan was changed a bit: we'd like to go with a (small) team of representatives from the large ZTK consumers, namely: Zope 2, grok, and BlueBream. I assume at least someone from every project is listening here, so I suggest the following: * grok and BlueBream: please check within your own sub-communities for someone you'd like to represent you in the draft of what the ZTK 1.0 should look like and who is willing to help with it. * Zope 2: In theory I'd suggest the Zope 2 release manager. In practice I'd like to nominate Hanno because he's been very active with Zope 2 recently and already has done work on the ZTK before. (Hanno: sorry. *duck*) We don't have a complete set of tasks/issues for the release yet, however, here's a few: * Find a definition of 'ZTK release' that fits all consumers * Establish actual task list and work on it * Ensure we have windows binaries We don't have a schedule to follow, but I think we can get started within the next weeks (read that "as soon as we have the staffing issues out of the way"). Cheers, Christian -- Christian Theune · ct(a)gocept.com gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 0 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting and development

5 6

Agenda for today's IRC meeting (3pm UTC on #zope)
by Christian Theune 13 Apr '10

13 Apr '10

Hi everyone, today's the fifth weekly meeting and I hope to see you around 3pm UTC at #zope at freenode. (Still a few hours to go.) Please plan 45 minutes for today instead of the usual 30 minutes: the designated time frame of the meeting as an experiment is ending and thus I'd like to spend some time for reflection in addition to the regular meeting. If you can, please prepare your thoughts about the meeting: what you like or didn't like, what works for you, and what doesn't work, suggestions or questiosn you have. Last week's summary is here: https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/attachments/20100327/e26f6a8c/atta… Agenda ------ - Bug tracking - working on bugs regularly - keeping an eye on the situation - How do we deal with proposed API changes and Python 3 compatibility? (Lennart Regebro) - Review off weekly meeting experiment Ongoing issues -------------- Those issues are currently ongoing. We don't have to discuss them. We just need to follow up on them eventually. - Test runners / nightly buids - Bootstrapping the coordinator volunteer. Clarify responsibilities and current tasks. - Towards a list of projects/platforms/etc. we want guaranteed builds for. - Automatic binary egg builds for Windows - Access to Windows build machine for developers (AMI) - Access to Visual Studio license for the build machine - Bug tracking - Temporary restructuring of ZTK packages into single project (ctheune) - Long-term restructuring of LP packages into individual projects and project group - Triaging Z3 bugs into ZTK, closing Z3 tracker then. - Towards a ZTK release - Establishing ZTK release engineering team (Z2, grok, BB) - Documentation - Release scope Horizon ------- These items are currently tracked on the horizon. We won't discuss them at this meeting, but we'll get to them at some point: - Pondering *some* (re-)structuring of the ZTK to allow for better maintenance/release management/communication/marketing. (Chris McDonough) -- Christian Theune · ct(a)gocept.com gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 0 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting and development

8 19

NEO High Performance Distributed Fault Tolerant ZODB Storage
by Vincent Pelletier 07 Apr '10

07 Apr '10

Hi, I would like to present you the NEOPPOD project, aiming at improving ZODB Storage scalability. The implementation is in a rather good shape, although it fails at a few ZODB tests at the moment (they are currently being worked on). Scalability is achieved by distributing data over multiple servers (replication and load balancing) with the ability to extend/reduce cluster on-line. Its code is available under the GPL, more information can be found on the project website[1]. One nice aspect is that the underlying protocol is being analysed with model-checking tools based on Petri Nets by a team of post-doc, PhD students and researchers. An article should appear in PETRI NETS 2010 [2]. We hope that NEO will be usable for production systems in 12 months from now, and will notify the community the day we think it is, ie. after using it ourselves. Meanwhile, it can be interesting for research and fun. Contributions are very welcome (extend portability beyond Linux 2.6, replace MySQL daemon dependency with a lighter & embeddable transactional storage, etc). For now, it has been manually confirmed to run Plone and ERP5. Of course, to get the best out of NEO, a Zope application (or ZODB-based application) needs to be designed in a way taking advantage of back-end parallelism (much in the same way that a single-process application cannot take advantage of SMP). We wrote a presentation[3] out of our experience with ERP5 scalability testing & improvement, which might be an interesting read for people developing on the Zope framework. It describes what was the most common mistakes we corrected, and tools we developed to further extend scalability at various levels (NEO being the latest). And for most productions system, ZEO is really great. We have for example used ZEO for now more than 2 years to operate a Central Bank ERP with 300 concurrent users and ZEO never crashed. [1] http://www.neoppod.org/ [2] http://acsd-petrinets2010.di.uminho.pt/ [3] http://www.myerp5.com/kb/enterprise-High.Performance.Zope/view Note: If this mail would fit another list better, please advise. Regards, -- Vincent Pelletier

3 5

Zope2 - Release Manager
by Hanno Schlichting 02 Apr '10

02 Apr '10

Hi there, I was in too much of a good mood while having some vacation. So I thought I need more work to do :) I'd like to step up as the release manager for Zope2 for the 2.12 and 2.13 (trunk) releases. I've gotten an overwhelmingly positive response to this proposal from the Zope Foundation board. The ZF board was discussing a general release manager process. This discussion will become obsolete, should nobody in the Zope2 developer community have significant objections against my proposal. Unless there is a real need for it, the Zope Foundation will continue to stay out of direct decisions on the development process. Q&A Who am I? I'm going to assume everyone on this list knows me by now. Should you have any questions, please feel free to ask. You know this is Zope2 and not Plone? Indeed. I hope I have shown in the past, that I'm able to distinguish between the two. And what is appropriate and sensible for Zope2 with its many different consumers. Plone might be a major consumer of Zope2, but it's not the only one. Since I only use Zope2 as a base for Plone, I do have a certain bias. Wait, you say 2.12 and 2.13, what about 2.11 and before? Sorry, I have to pick my playground. The non-eggified Zope2 releases are very different in their release procedures. I find that process to be tedious and no fun at all, so I'm not going to spent my free time on it. Should nobody else step up to act as a release manager for those releases, they will be unsupported. Are you a new Andreas? Nobody can replace Andreas and the tremendous amount of time and dedication he has shown. Personally I do not care about evangelizing Zope2 or helping out end-users on mailing lists amongst others. So no, I'm not going to do all the work Andreas did. I'm only here to help out as a release manager, whose job it is to get stable releases out. I do read the developers mailing lists and watch the bug trackers, I don't read any users mailing list or see it as my job to fix or respond to every bug anyone reports. What about that Plone release manager position? I am currently the release manager for Plone 5. We have clarified the overall roadmap for Plone 5, and we aren't going to work on any of the formal release parts for the next 12 months or longer. The current focus is on the Plone 4.x release series, where Eric Steele serves as the release manager. So while I'm going to keep my post as a Plone release manager, it currently doesn't involve any time commitments. What about Zope 2.14 or beyond? Nobody knows yet. We will see once we get there. My formal commitment is for 2.12 and 2.13. Are you insane? Maybe a little bit. But seriously if anyone knows anyone else who would be interested in this job, speak up. I haven't seen anyone else since Andreas stepped down. And I happen to work for a company which is 100% dependent on Zope / Plone for their income stream. While I'm doing this in my spare time, I do have a very real need for Zope2 releases. I'm planning to make a 2.12.4 release on Easter Monday (April 5). You have until then to ask questions and complain :) Hanno

10 19

Summary of this weeks' meeting (2010-03-30)
by Christian Theune 01 Apr '10

01 Apr '10

Hi, here's this week's summary. For those of you who can't/don't participate in those meetings, there's the open question about how useful you consider my summaries to be. Please tell! Also in short: we decided to keep going with the meetings, so I'd be happy to see you guys next week in #zope. (Hopefully without screwing up the time then.) Christian -- Christian Theune · ct(a)gocept.com gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 0 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting and development

12 12

Zope2: Reducing C dependencies
by Hanno Schlichting 01 Apr '10

01 Apr '10

Hi. For Zope 2.13 (trunk) I'd like to try to reduce the C dependencies of the Zope2 distribution itself. Ideally it would not have any C dependencies in its own distribution, but that's a bit too much for now. As a next step I'd like to split out the initgroups, Missing, MultiMapping, Record and ThreadLock packages into their own distributions. The code in these hasn't changed in years and I don't see this changing anytime soon. If this is done the remaining C libraries are in AccessControl, DocumentTemplate and ZCTextIndex. AccessControl has a reference implementation in Python and could the C library could be made an optional optimization. The ZCTextIndex okascore.c and stopper.c should also be relatively easy to do as Python implementations. DocumentTemplate has a pDocumentTemplate.py module as a reference implementation, which clearly states that it is outdated. This would need to be updated to match the C implementation. Hanno

6 15