- Zope-Dev - Zope lists

Re: [Zope-dev] Proposal: set __parent__ and __name__ in Zope 2.12 OFS
by Andreas Jung 01 May '09

01 May '09

On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 18:46, Martin Aspeli <optilude(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/4/27 Andreas Jung <lists(a)zopyx.com>: > > > You might approach Hanno since he has committer rights. > > I do too... Does that mean you're +1 ? I have no problem with the changes. You have my blessing if Hanno is ok with the changes from the Plone prospective. Andreas

7 13

Proposal: set __parent__ and __name__ in Zope 2.12 OFS
by Martin Aspeli 01 May '09

01 May '09

Hi, First - a quick question: can we treat __name__ and id/getId()/_setId() as the same, always? OFS.SimpleItem has some support for letting id and name be the same, but the link is lost once both __name__ and id are set. Why isn't __name__ just a property that reflects self.id ? Then, the proposal: In Zope 2.12, acquisition wrappers are optional. Instead of using a wrapper, acquisition can work by following __parent__ pointers. That work well for views, where these are now set properly, but no content currently maintains __parent__ pointers. We can fix this by introducing some code in OFS (and BTreeFolder2) that mimics what zope.container does. We can't use the setitem() and uncontained() helpers directly, since these deal with containment proxies and have slightly different semantics, but I think we can do this: 1) Add the following to _setOb: def _setOb(self, id, object): if ILocation.providedBy(object): if not IContained.providedBy(object): alsoProvides(object, IContained) oldname = getattr(object, '__name__', None) oldparent = getattr(object, '__parent__', None) if id is not oldname: object.__name__ = id if self is not oldparent: object.__parent__ = self setattr(self, id, object) 2) Add the following to _delOb: def _delOb(self, id): """ Remove the named object from the folder. """ try: obj = self._getOb(id, _marker) if obj is not _marker: if IContained.providedBy(obj): obj.__parent__ = None obj.__name__ = None except AttributeError: # No need to fail if we can't set these pass delattr(self, id) Note that there's a slight discrepancy here with the way zope.container works. In Zope 3, the __parent__ pointer is not unset until after the ObjectRemovedEvent is fired. In Zope 2, we only fire that event after the object has been fully removed (in _delObject()), but we have the ObjectWillBeRemovedEvent that is fired before. I don't think this really matters, though. 3) It'd be nice to also make ObjectManager and BTreeFolder2Base support the IContainer interface, so that OFS containers can be used with the more natural dict-like API of Zope 3 rather than the somewhat obscure getattr()/_getOb()/_setObject()-vs-_setOb() and so on API we have now. To add this, we'd just need to add a few methods to ObjectManager that calls the existing APIs, e.g. __getitem__, __delitem__, __setitem__ and so on. We have code for all three of these in plone.folder which could be pushed down to OFS an BTreeFolder2 quite easily. Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book

10 17

Zope 2.12 from buildout with no funky recipes: success!
by Chris Withers 01 May '09

01 May '09

Hi All, I've committed the tiny change necessary to be able to run Zope 2.12 from a (relatively) simple buildout. I've attached the buildout.cfg, zope.conf.in and zeo.conf.in I've been using to this message. It would be nicer if the initialization bits could go away and the Zope2 egg could declare the runzope and zopectl scripts. Where do the runzeo and zeoctl entry points belong? I'd guess in the ZODB egg, but would they get built when specifying just the zope2 egg? The above may be problematic: how would we pass the location of zeo.conf and zope.conf to the start scripts? cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk

2 3

Zope Tests: 8 OK
by Zope Tests Summarizer 01 May '09

01 May '09

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Thu Apr 30 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Fri May 1 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: Thu Apr 30 20:45:18 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011595.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Apr 30 20:47:21 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011596.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Apr 30 20:49:27 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011597.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.5.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Apr 30 20:51:27 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011598.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.6.1 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Apr 30 20:53:27 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011599.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Apr 30 20:55:27 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011600.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.5.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Apr 30 20:57:27 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011601.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.1 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Apr 30 20:59:28 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011602.html

1 0

zc.buildout template recipes: concerns with [z3c|collective].recipe.template and other issues
by Gary Poster 30 Apr '09

30 Apr '09

I'm concerned about the state of the zc.buildout template recipes. I want one. I want some one-off files, specific to a certain project, for which writing a standalone recipe feels very heavy. Here are the template recipes I found: collective.recipe.template (Wichert Akkerman) iw.recipe.template (Ingeniweb) inquant.recipe.textfile (Stefan Eletzhofer) z3c.recipe.template (Uli Fouquet) buildout_script (Nathan Yergler) z3c.recipe.filetemplate (Philipp von Weitershausen) First, on the basis of this list, it strikes me that a lot of people want this functionality. Putting template support into zc.buildout itself would be nice. I envision some APIs (like the ones in easy_install.py that zc.recipe.egg uses) that other recipes could use easily. I would even want recipes like the zc.recipe.egg script recipe to allow specifying initialization code by identifying a template (i.e., ``initialization_template = buildout_templates/foo``, which would parse the given template and insert the code the same way the ``initialization`` parameter works). Second, there's no clear winner at the moment. I happened to find z3c.recipe.template, buildout_script, and z3c.recipe.filetemplate first. On the basis of those three, and the comments that z3c.recipe.template made about collective.recipe.template, iw.recipe.template, and inquant.recipe.textfile, I decided to settle on z3c.recipe.template to be the package to which I would contribute. It has tests, a variable substitution approach that seems to work well with buildout, and recent development activity. However, on starting to hack on its documentation to sketch the changes I wanted, I gradually realized that this was a fork of collective.recipe.template. Since collective.recipe.template is listed as BSD in setup.py (though I saw no explicit licensing otherwise), placing z3c.recipe.template in the zope.org ZPL-only repository is problematic. Since I don't find the prospect of creating yet another template recipe attractive, and Philipp's z3c.recipe.filetemplate looks like it can take my new features while maintaining backwards compatibility, I'll try that next, I suppose. But meanwhile, I'm concerned about the state of z3c.recipe.template. IMO, Uli and Wichert should try to reconcile the licensing and forking issues (with Uli taking the lead in those discussions, ideally, since he is the one who forked). z3c.recipe.template should be removed from the zope.org repository, unless/until the licensing story is cleaned up. And maybe we can start to settle on a common template approach soon. This should be a problem that is solved for buildout canonically, IMO. I'll be happy to try and see if my features are generally interesting, once I make them. (Note: I could write about this on the distutils list but I'm not already subscribed there, and I suspect I have a better chance of catching some authors of the pertinent recipes over here, and some of this is about the zope.org repo.) Gary

6 10

Zope Tests: 8 OK
by Zope Tests Summarizer 30 Apr '09

30 Apr '09

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Wed Apr 29 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Thu Apr 30 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: Wed Apr 29 20:54:23 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011587.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Apr 29 20:56:28 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011588.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Apr 29 20:58:34 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011589.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.5.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Apr 29 21:00:35 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011590.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.6.1 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Apr 29 21:02:36 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011591.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Apr 29 21:04:36 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011592.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.5.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Apr 29 21:06:37 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011593.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.1 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Apr 29 21:08:37 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011594.html

1 0

Zope Tests: 8 OK
by Zope Tests Summarizer 29 Apr '09

29 Apr '09

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Tue Apr 28 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Wed Apr 29 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: Tue Apr 28 20:51:05 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011579.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Apr 28 20:53:07 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011580.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Apr 28 20:55:07 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011581.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.5.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Apr 28 20:57:08 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011582.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.6.1 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Apr 28 20:59:14 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011583.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Apr 28 21:01:15 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011584.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.5.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Apr 28 21:03:16 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011585.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.1 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Apr 28 21:05:16 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011586.html

1 0

Re: [Zope-dev] SVN: zope.traversing/trunk/ zcml now only depends on zope.component meta, not zope.app.component
by Tres Seaver 29 Apr '09

29 Apr '09

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Gary Poster wrote: > Log message for revision 98787: > zcml now only depends on zope.component meta, not zope.app.component > > Changed: > U zope.traversing/trunk/CHANGES.txt > U zope.traversing/trunk/src/zope/traversing/configure.zcml > A zope.traversing/trunk/src/zope/traversing/tests/ftest_zcml_dependencies.zcml > A zope.traversing/trunk/src/zope/traversing/tests/test_dependencies.py > > -=- > Modified: zope.traversing/trunk/CHANGES.txt > =================================================================== > --- zope.traversing/trunk/CHANGES.txt 2009-04-02 02:22:07 UTC (rev 98786) > +++ zope.traversing/trunk/CHANGES.txt 2009-04-02 06:46:52 UTC (rev 98787) > @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ > 3.5.4 (unreleased) > ------------------ > > -- ... > +- Change configure.zcml to not depend on zope.app.component. > > 3.5.3 (2009-03-10) > ------------------ > > Modified: zope.traversing/trunk/src/zope/traversing/configure.zcml > =================================================================== > --- zope.traversing/trunk/src/zope/traversing/configure.zcml 2009-04-02 02:22:07 UTC (rev 98786) > +++ zope.traversing/trunk/src/zope/traversing/configure.zcml 2009-04-02 06:46:52 UTC (rev 98787) > @@ -16,10 +16,10 @@ > provides="zope.traversing.interfaces.ITraversable" for="*" > factory="zope.traversing.namespace.etc" > /> > -<view > +<adapter > name="etc" > - type="zope.interface.Interface" > - provides="zope.traversing.interfaces.ITraversable" for="*" > + for="* zope.publisher.interfaces.IRequest" > + provides="zope.traversing.interfaces.ITraversable" > factory="zope.traversing.namespace.etc" > /> > ... Excellent fix. Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver(a)palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJ1PEi+gerLs4ltQ4RAo7yAKCG3khpLFSM3pB/4GhtgaCVow/63wCgsHKF QooMuQx3Htwl6K0hBFr12vU= =o9k5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 4

Defining Zope 3.
by Lennart Regebro 28 Apr '09

28 Apr '09

Here are a list of things I have seen that you may mean when you say "Zope 3". I'm sure I missed several: 1. Whatever is included in the Zope 3 tgz that you download. 2. All the packages included in the Zope 3 KGS. (Should be the same as 1, if I understand correctly.) 3. 1 or 2 minus the ZMI. 4. The zope.app.publication publisher. 5. A loose set of packages starting with zope.*, zc.* and z3c.* 6. A strictly defined (by the Zope Toolkit KGS) set of packages starting with zope.*, zc.* and z3c.* that is central and common to Zope 3 in the sense of 1 or 2, and also Grok and Zope 2. 7. Technologies that you use when you develop with the packages in 5 and 6. I propose that the name Zope 3 applies *only* to 1 and 2. If future versions of 1 or 2 gets released without the ZMI (as discussed in other threads), then of course 1, 2 and 3 is the same. Opinions? -- Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64

20 69

Publishing buildout [versions] blocks for releases
by Martin Aspeli 28 Apr '09

28 Apr '09

Hi folks, I've written a small Google App Engine application to help manage and publish buildout configuration that provide a known good [versions] block. I'm not sure this approach is good, and the application is not well tested, but it may be of interest to some people here. http://good-py.appspot.com http://www.martinaspeli.net/articles/hello-good-py-a-known-good-versions-ma… The code's in the collective, so I welcome improvements. I think it is at lest interesting using GAE for this type of thing, whether this particular application is the approach or not. 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