January 2012 - Zope-Dev

zope.intid and zope.keyreference.interfaces.NotYet exception (patch)
by Cykooz 04 Jul '12

04 Jul '12

Hi, I created a patch for a package zope.intid that almost completely solves the problem with the zope.keyreference.interfaces.NotYet exception. I implemented a deferred indexing of objects added to the container which is not connected to the ZODB. As soon as the container is added to the ZODB - all deferred objects will be indexed. I also added a marker IIntIdsDisabled for marking objects that must not be indexed. I would be grateful if someone could look at my changes and merge them into the main branch. My fork of zope.intid - https://bitbucket.org/cykooz/zope.intid/src PS: Sorry for my English. ------------------- Cykooz (Kirill Kuzminykh)

7 12

Zope 4 release management
by Laurence Rowe 12 Jun '12

12 Jun '12

Along with David Glick, I would like to volunteer for the Zope 4 release management role, where I would take responsibility for producing the initial release of Zope 4 and David would then take over for the maintenance releases. In doing so, I thought it would be helpful to set out our understanding of the mission of Zope 4. If accepted I'll work to produce a first draft of a roadmap based on the outcome of the recent sprints and discussions on this mailing list. Mission ------- Zope 4 will be the first of several releases that seek to simplify our software stack. Over the years Zope 2 grew through the adoption of new technologies, notably Zope 3, but rarely removed older ways of doing things. Below, 'Zope 4' refers to the series of releases including Zope 5, 6, etc. Over the series of releases, Zope 4 will progressively remove more and more software as we transition to using software components shared with other Python web frameworks. It is as important to state what Zope 4 *is not* as what it should be: * Zope 4 will not seek to be of interest to those developing new applications. They should instead look to projects such as Pyramid that build on the experience and technologies of Zope without regard for the backwards compatibility concerns that will constrain Zope 4. * Zope 4 will not seek to innovate in itself but encourage innovation in software components shared with the wider Python web community. * Zope 4 will not move so quickly that it becomes impossible to make Plone, its main consumer, work with it. * But neither will Zope 4 seek to retain backwards compatibility at any cost. As the basis of Plone 4, Zope 2.13 will see maintenance releases as long as Plone 4 is supported. * Zope 4 will not have a release cycle independent of Plone. Zope 4 only exists as a transitional path for Zope 2 based applications and experience has shown that Zope 2 releases not used in any Plone release do not receive the same level of ongoing maintenance. Development Process ------------------- We want to encourage all features to be developed on separate feature branches so we can maintain a stable trunk. Before these feature branches are merged they should be posted to the mailing list for review. This process will necessitate a lot of merging, so I want to propose that we move to Git for development (something we found very helpful at our recent San Francisco Zope 4 sprint.) I don't have any opinion on where the canonical repository should be hosted - I know some people have strong opinions that this should be on Zope Foundation controlled hardware. If that's to be the case then we will need the svn.zope.org maintainers to setup a shared git repository on that machine. I think mirroring to github (and/or launchpad in future) will be the simplest way to provide an anonymously accessible and web browsable copy. Laurence

17 32

Re: [Zope-dev] experimental.broken - Graceful handling of broken interfaces and components in the ZODB
by Ross Patterson 11 Apr '12

11 Apr '12

I've done some more work on this and I've gotten the component registrations fully working now with one exception that I'm having real trouble with. I'd like some help with that, more below. I'm also a bit more clear on what might be appropriate to bring back into zope.interface and I'd like feedback on that. Currently interfaces are pickled as globals. Given their centrality in any ZCA application, I think they should be pickled using a function: def __reduce__(self): return (find_interface, (modulename, globalname)) where find_interface, if ZODB.broken.find_global can be imported, in turn calls: ZODB.broken.find_global(modulename, globalname, Broken=IBroken, type=InterfaceClass) since find_global already has nicely abstracted graceful missing global handling. If this were added to zope.interface, and changed ZODB objects with marker interfaces or persistent registries where all the code for the interfaces is still available will then be updated with pickles that will gracefully handle missing interfaces in the future. Thus you could use zodbupdate to make sure that the interfaces in your ZODB will fail gracefully in the future. Do you agree/disagree that this belongs in zope.interface? What this will not address are existing interfaces-as-globals pickles where the original interface is now missing. That's where the other patches in experimental.broken come in, they intercept the two contexts where we can infer that a missing global should be an interface: instance provides declarations and persistent component registries. By hooking into the unpickling of those objects, we can replace broken classes with broken interfaces as appropriate for those structures. With these patches installed it should be possible to use applications with missing interfaces and to use zodbupdate to make sure that even *already missing* interfaces will fail gracefully both now and in the future. I think these patches don't belong in zope.interface/component and if they work I would likely move them to five.localsitemanager along with a ZCML file that is not loaded by default. Does that sound right? Then one thing I haven't been able to get working is making it possible to commit a changed persistent registry when it includes a component registration for a non-persistent component whose class/type is missing. This works just fine for a *persistent* component whose class/type is missing but fails for a non-persistent component. The error is: AttributeError: 'Bar' object has no attribute '__Broken_newargs__' More specifically, '__Broken_newargs__' is set by the Broken.__new__ method and I've confirmed that this isn't being called by instrumenting __new__, __init__, and __setstate__. Only __setstate__ is called when unpickling the non-persistent broken component not __new__ as should be. Below is the full traceback. I've also left the package repo in the broken state if you want to examine it, the egg checkout is also a buildout: https://github.com/rpatterson/experimental.broken/commit/a4b648dc78e53c7303… Any help with this last issue would be appreciated. Ross Ross Patterson <me(a)rpatterson.net> writes: > Please take a look at experimental.broken: > > https://github.com/rpatterson/experimental.broken > http://pypi.python.org/pypi/experimental.broken > > The handling of broken objects by the ZODB can make an application with > add-ons that use zope.interface far too fragile. If marker interfaces > from an add-on are used on objects in the ZODB, removing that add-on can > make any zope.interface operation on that object fail. Even worse, if > an add-on registers any components in a registry in the ZODB, that > entire registry will become unusable for any ZCA operations which pretty > much breaks everything, including admin interfaces. > > Since the interfaces and the ZCA are often core parts of an application > using the ZODB, it may be appropriate to add special handling for broken > objects to those services. The experimental.broken patches are my > attempt to prototype such special handling. > > For objects in the ZODB which directly provide a marker interface, > these patches allow that object to behave as without the application > of the marker interface if the interface is no longer available. If > the interface is made available again, the full behavior of that > interface is restored. Similarly, if a component whose class, > provided interface, or required interfaces are missing, these patches > allow the registry to perform lookups it would have been able to do > without the broken component registration. If the component > class, provided interface, and required interfaces are restored, > then the component registration is fully restored. > > If an object or registry in the ZODB is committed to the ZODB with > broken interfaces or components, the commit will succeed and it is still > possible to fully restore previous behavior if the missing classes and > interfaces are restored. Unfortunately, because interfaces are pickled > as globals, there's no good way to have the same pickle written on > commit for the interface as was in the original pickle, but it should > behave exactly the same. > > The intention of this package is to see if the implementation of broken > object handling is correct and robust enough to merge into > zope.interface and zope.component themselves. Is this the right > approach? If not why and what would be better? How might this approach > be improved? > > Ross > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > RSA(R) Conference 2012 > Save $700 by Nov 18 > Register now > http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1

7 10

Re: [Zope-dev] [Plone-developers] experimental.broken - Graceful handling of broken interfaces and components in the ZODB
by Malthe Borch 08 Apr '12

08 Apr '12

On 7 November 2011 09:17, Ross Patterson <me(a)rpatterson.net> wrote: > The intention of this package is to see if the implementation of broken > object handling is correct and robust enough to merge into > zope.interface and zope.component themselves. Is this the right > approach? If not why and what would be better? How might this approach > be improved? (removed plone-dev from cc). Isn't it symptom treatment though? If you've got an add-on which adds marker interfaces to "general objects", shouldn't that add-on remove – or no longer provide – those same interfaces when it's uninstalled? At least in Plone, you can easily query content objects providing a particular set of interfaces. I think it's a non-goal to be able to run a system without all the required software – which is how I understand it when you just do a "hard remove" of an add-on without a prior "soft remove". \malthe

3 2

Re: [Zope-dev] [Checkins] SVN: z3c.form/trunk/setup.py Get ready for 2.6.1 release.
by Adam GROSZER 20 Feb '12

20 Feb '12

Hello, I think we need to automate "sdist upload", the .mo files are missing from the release. Any ideas other than patching setup.py to create the .mo files automatically? On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 23:03:08 -0500 (EST) you wrote: > > Log message for revision 124260: > Get ready for 2.6.1 release. > -- Best regards, Adam GROSZER -- Quote of the day: A man forgives only when he is in the wrong.

5 6

zope.app.wsgi.paste doesn't emit a ProcessStarting event
by Jim Fulton 08 Feb '12

08 Feb '12

zope.app.server emits a ProcessStarting event on startup. zope.app.wsgi.paste doesn't. I think it should. If there are no objections, I'll make a bug fix release for this. BTW, I ended up making a 3.9.3zc1 release (this will spur 3.9.3zc2 release) because the latest release breaks our apps' tests. Not sure if this was due to zope.testbrowser 4, or the (until recently) unreleased zope.app.testing changes needed to work with zope.testbrowser 4. I haven't had time to chase these down, thus the 3.9.3zc1 release, which I'm not terribly proud of. Jim -- Jim Fulton http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton

7 30

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 4 ZMI sprint report
by Christopher Lozinski 07 Feb '12

07 Feb '12

Thank you for the sprint report. I think it is great that you are working on upgrading the ZMI. I am also turning my attention to this problem. Clearly ZMI needs an upgrade. I need an upgraded ZMI. Today I fired up my old version of ZAM. I can give you a password and url if you want to see what it looks like. My understanding is that it is a well thought out upgrade for the ZMI. Properly done with page templates, not dtml, and pluggable. It certainly looks nice. Of course it has copy, cut, delete, rename, but no create. I also did a reinstall of the ZAM demo, but it broke. Am I doing the wrong thing working on ZAM? Is that consistent with the direction others are taking on upgrading the ZMI, or should I be putting my energy elsewhere? If I am doing the right thing working on ZAM, perhaps the first thing I should do is get the install working again correctly. For that I have to get svn access from the Zope foundation. I presume Larry Rowe is the release manager for Zope 4, so he is the person who signs off on the upgrades to ZAM? Do I understand the process correctly? Is ZAM part of Zope 4? Is it the basis of the new ZMI, or is something else the new ZMI? -- Regards Christopher Lozinski Check out my iPhone apps TextFaster and EmailFaster http://textfaster.com Expect a paradigm shift. http://MyHDL.org

6 11

Zope 2 WSGI investigation
by Martin Aspeli 31 Jan '12

31 Jan '12

Hi, There are three known WSGI implementations of the Zope 2 publisher. I've had a look at them and made some notes about what I think provides the best story: ## Zope 2.13 WSGIPublisher Pros: * Allows distributed transaction management with repoze.tm2 * Allows distributed retry with repoze.retry * Ships with Zope * Quite simple Cons: * Requires repoze.tm2 and repoze.rety * Does not properly emit publication events - possible patch in https://gist.github.com/1548061 * Does not do error handling or exception views * Claims not to properly implement streaming (though there is some code for it) * Probably less well tested than infrae.wsgi and repoze.zope2 (at least there is zero documentation) ## infrae.wsgi Pros: * Clean and well documented * Properly emits publication events * Supports streaming * Supports simplified virtual hosting with X-VHM-Host * Supports exception handling / error views * Reportedly has significant production use Cons: * Not 100% compatible (but close and fixable) - fix to make plone.transformchain work is here: https://gist.github.com/1547328 * Unnecessary five.grok dependency (but easy to rewrite to use ZCML registration) * No support for middleware transaction and retry management, so these can't be distributed across a WSGI pipeline * Error logging will not support ZMI error_log and assumes single process * Error handling is slightly different to standard publisher's exception views, and also does not honour existing standard_error_message etc ## repoze.zope2 Pros: * Clean and well documented * Reimplements and simplifies the BaseRequest.traverse() code, with comments * Supports distributed transaction management and retry Cons: * Replicates a lot of Zope startup code * Has now-unnecessary code to manage instances and configuration * repoze.obob abstraction is unnecessary since nothing else uses this * Does not emit publication events - possible patch in http://bugs.repoze.org/issue181 * Does not do error handling or exception views * Problems with file resources (does not properly traverse to browserDefault() result) -- possible patch in http://bugs.repoze.org/issue64 * Requires various middleware (repoze.tm, repoze.retry, repoze.vhm) ## Suggested approach going forward * Integrate infrae.wsgi into Zope 2 * Remove its five.grok dependency * Use the same exception-views protocol as ZPublisher (mainly, that the view name is ``index.html``) * Stop using __ 'private' variables in response.py to make it easier to work with * Add some BBB support for existing error logging and error messages Thoughts? Martin

8 14

PyConUS sprint on Zope 4
by Leonardo Rochael Almeida 31 Jan '12

31 Jan '12

Hi, Anyone going to this PyConUS who would like to sprint on Zope4? Topics of particular interest to me include security (as I explained in a previous e-mail) and the new ZMI.

2 1

zope-tests - FAILED: 27, OK: 40
by Zope tests summarizer 31 Jan '12

31 Jan '12

This is the summary for test reports received on the zope-tests list between 2012-01-29 00:00:00 UTC and 2012-01-30 00:00:00 UTC: See the footnotes for test reports of unsuccessful builds. An up-to date view of the builders is also available in our buildbot documentation: http://docs.zope.org/zopetoolkit/process/buildbots.html#the-nightly-builds Reports received ---------------- [1] ZTK 1.0 / Python2.4.6 Linux 64bit [2] ZTK 1.0 / Python2.5.5 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.0 / Python2.6.7 Linux 64bit [3] ZTK 1.0dev / Python2.4.6 Linux 64bit [4] ZTK 1.0dev / Python2.5.5 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.0dev / Python2.6.7 Linux 64bit [5] ZTK 1.1 / Python2.5.5 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.1 / Python2.6.7 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.1 / Python2.7.2 Linux 64bit [6] ZTK 1.1dev / Python2.5.5 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.1dev / Python2.6.7 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.1dev / Python2.7.2 Linux 64bit Zope 3.4 KGS / Python2.4.6 64bit linux Zope 3.4 KGS / Python2.5.5 64bit linux Zope 3.4 Known Good Set / py2.4-32bit-linux Zope 3.4 Known Good Set / py2.4-64bit-linux Zope 3.4 Known Good Set / py2.5-32bit-linux Zope 3.4 Known Good Set / py2.5-64bit-linux Zope Buildbot / zope2.12-py2.6 slave-ubuntu32 Zope Buildbot / zope2.12-py2.6 slave-ubuntu64 Zope Buildbot / zope2.13-py2.6 slave-ubuntu32 Zope Buildbot / zope2.13-py2.6 slave-ubuntu64 Zope Buildbot / zope2.13-py2.7 slave-ubuntu32 Zope Buildbot / zope2.13-py2.7 slave-ubuntu64 Zope Buildbot / zope2.14-py2.6 slave-ubuntu32 Zope Buildbot / zope2.14-py2.6 slave-ubuntu64 Zope Buildbot / zope2.14-py2.7 slave-ubuntu32 Zope Buildbot / zope2.14-py2.7 slave-ubuntu64 [7] Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-1.0-py2.4 slave-ubuntu32 [8] Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-1.0-py2.4 slave-ubuntu64 [9] Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-1.0-py2.5 slave-ubuntu32 [10] Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-1.0-py2.5 slave-ubuntu64 [11] Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-1.0-py2.6 slave-ubuntu32 [12] Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-1.0-py2.6 slave-ubuntu64 [13] Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-1.1-py2.5 slave-ubuntu32 [14] Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-1.1-py2.5 slave-ubuntu64 [15] Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-1.1-py2.6 slave-ubuntu32 [16] Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-1.1-py2.6 slave-ubuntu64 [17] Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-py2.5 slave-ubuntu32 [18] Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-py2.5 slave-ubuntu64 [19] Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-py2.6 slave-ubuntu32 [20] Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-py2.6 slave-ubuntu64 Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux Zope-2.12 Python-2.6.6 : Linux Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.6.6 : Linux Zope-2.13 Python-2.6.6 : Linux Zope-2.13-alltests Python-2.6.6 : Linux Zope-trunk Python-2.6.6 : Linux Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.6 : Linux winbot / ZODB_dev py_265_win32 winbot / ZODB_dev py_265_win64 winbot / ZODB_dev py_270_win32 winbot / ZODB_dev py_270_win64 [21] winbot / zope.testing_py_265_32 [22] winbot / ztk_10 py_254_win32 winbot / ztk_10 py_265_win32 winbot / ztk_10 py_265_win64 [23] winbot / ztk_11 py_254_win32 winbot / ztk_11 py_265_win32 winbot / ztk_11 py_265_win64 winbot / ztk_11 py_270_win32 winbot / ztk_11 py_270_win64 [24] winbot / ztk_dev py_265_win32 [25] winbot / ztk_dev py_265_win64 [26] winbot / ztk_dev py_270_win32 [27] winbot / ztk_dev py_270_win64 Non-OK results -------------- [1] FAILED ZTK 1.0 / Python2.4.6 Linux 64bit https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2012-January/057076.html [2] FAILED ZTK 1.0 / Python2.5.5 Linux 64bit https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2012-January/057078.html [3] FAILED ZTK 1.0dev / Python2.4.6 Linux 64bit https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2012-January/057087.html [4] FAILED ZTK 1.0dev / Python2.5.5 Linux 64bit https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2012-January/057089.html [5] FAILED ZTK 1.1 / Python2.5.5 Linux 64bit https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2012-January/057074.html [6] FAILED ZTK 1.1dev / Python2.5.5 Linux 64bit https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2012-January/057085.html [7] FAILED Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-1.0-py2.4 slave-ubuntu32 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2012-January/057106.html [8] FAILED Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-1.0-py2.4 slave-ubuntu64 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2012-January/057096.html [9] FAILED Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-1.0-py2.5 slave-ubuntu32 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2012-January/057108.html [10] FAILED Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-1.0-py2.5 slave-ubuntu64 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2012-January/057098.html [11] FAILED Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-1.0-py2.6 slave-ubuntu32 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2012-January/057110.html [12] FAILED Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-1.0-py2.6 slave-ubuntu64 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2012-January/057102.html [13] FAILED Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-1.1-py2.5 slave-ubuntu32 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2012-January/057112.html [14] FAILED Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-1.1-py2.5 slave-ubuntu64 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2012-January/057105.html [15] FAILED Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-1.1-py2.6 slave-ubuntu32 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2012-January/057116.html [16] FAILED Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-1.1-py2.6 slave-ubuntu64 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2012-January/057107.html [17] FAILED Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-py2.5 slave-ubuntu32 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2012-January/057119.html [18] FAILED Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-py2.5 slave-ubuntu64 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2012-January/057109.html [19] FAILED Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-py2.6 slave-ubuntu32 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2012-January/057123.html [20] FAILED Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-py2.6 slave-ubuntu64 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2012-January/057111.html [21] FAILED winbot / zope.testing_py_265_32 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2012-January/057079.html [22] FAILED winbot / ztk_10 py_254_win32 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2012-January/057128.html [23] FAILED winbot / ztk_11 py_254_win32 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2012-January/057131.html [24] FAILED winbot / ztk_dev py_265_win32 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2012-January/057124.html [25] FAILED winbot / ztk_dev py_265_win64 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2012-January/057125.html [26] FAILED winbot / ztk_dev py_270_win32 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2012-January/057126.html [27] FAILED winbot / ztk_dev py_270_win64 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2012-January/057127.html

1 0