- Zope-Dev - Zope lists

who wants to maintain Zope 3?
by Martijn Faassen 15 Apr '09

15 Apr '09

Hi there, Is anyone interested in maintaining Zope 3? With Zope 3 I mean: * the thing with the ZMI - do you care about the ZMI? * the thing that can be installed as a particular development platform - do you care about the installation story for Zope 3? (as opposed to Grok or your own application's?) * the thing that has some kind of documentation website - do you care about providing documentation for Zope 3 as opposed to documentation for Grok or individual libraries? People who are interested in these aspects please speak up, so we can figure out what this all means for the future of Zope 3. If nobody is interested, we should perhaps stop talking about it entirely. If people are just interested in the ZMI, perhaps we should form a ZMI project. What I'm *not* talking about is: * maintaining, documenting and installing Grok. * maintaining and documenting any particular Zope Toolkit library (outside of those bits that do ZMI-stuff, those aren't supposed to be in the toolkit) We know people are interested in doing all that. Regards, Martijn

16 57

Re: [Zope-dev] who wants to maintain Zope 3?
by Fabio Tranchitella 15 Apr '09

15 Apr '09

Hello, * 2009-04-13 12:50, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote: > > +1, to declaring Zope 3 dead. That should allow us to refactor the > > remaining packages much more aggressively and reduce the dependencies. > > -1 from my standpoint. Two of my projects are fully based on the Zope 3 > server, and switching to something else would be quite some pain. I fully agree: our company is based on zope3 technology, and we have at least three big deployments based on zope3 (yes, the application server) using ZODB and PostgreSQL/storm. I do not know in the details what would it mean to switch to the zope toolkit/repoze/whatever is fashionable today, but I suppose it would be quite painful for us. If the question was "who is interested in zope3, the application server, and willing to maintain it", I'd answer "me". Best regards. -- Fabio Tranchitella http://www.kobold.it Free Software Developer and Consultant http://www.tranchitella.it _____________________________________________________________________ 1024D/7F961564, fpr 5465 6E69 E559 6466 BF3D 9F01 2BF8 EE2B 7F96 1564

6 9

who wants to maintain the Zope 3 ZMI?
by Martijn Faassen 15 Apr '09

15 Apr '09

Hi there, In the whole discussion about Zope 3 I saw very few people speak up for the Zope 3 ZMI. So, who finds the Zope 3 ZMI useful? What parts of it do you find useful? Are you interested in helping maintain it? Note that I'm talking about the concrete Zope 3 ZMI here, not the general concept of the ZMI. I think there are quite a few useful concepts surrounding the ZMI, but the Zope 3 ZMI isn't that good at making any of these concepts work right now, in my opinion. If we get a consensus that the ZMI in Zope 3 isn't actually used a lot, we could take a lot more drastic action in removing it from our codebase than we've done before. If people are using it, we shouldn't do that of course. Regards, Martijn

6 13

Zope Tests: 6 OK, 2 Failed
by Zope Tests Summarizer 15 Apr '09

15 Apr '09

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Tue Apr 14 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Wed Apr 15 12:00:00 2009 UTC. There were 8 messages: 8 from Zope Tests. Test failures ------------- Subject: FAILED (failures=1) : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Apr 14 20:50:37 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011469.html Subject: FAILED (failures=1) : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Apr 14 20:56:37 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011472.html Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Apr 14 20:46:28 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011467.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Apr 14 20:48:37 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011468.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.5.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Apr 14 20:52:37 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011470.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.6.1 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Apr 14 20:54:37 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011471.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.5.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Apr 14 20:58:37 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011473.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.1 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Apr 14 21:00:38 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011474.html

1 0

Proposal: Align Zope 2 and Zope 3 permissions
by Martin Aspeli 14 Apr '09

14 Apr '09

Hi all, For a while now, people have had to contend with two ways of doing certain things, depending on whether the code they are working with is in "Zope 2 land" or "Zope 3 land". We're getting closer to a world where people don't need to be so intimately aware of the differences, especially since the __parent__ pointer work was merged, and some of the unification of page templates. However, we still have to do a lot of explaining in the realm of permissions. Five installs a Zope 3 security checker that checks against Zope 2 security. It does so by treating the title of a Zope 3 style IPermission utility as a Zope 2 permission string. This works well, and has allowed us to create valid Zope 3 permissions for the core Zope 2 and CMF permissions (e.g. zope2.View, cmf.ModifyPortalContent) for use in views and the like. However, it's not clear to new users where to use the Zope 3 style dotted name and where to use the Zope 2 permission string. As a rule of thumb, the rules are something like: - In ZCML (or a grok.require() directive) use the Zope 3 name - In code, e.g. when doing a checkPermission() call, use the Zope 2 name - With GenericSetup's rolemap.xml, use the Zope 2 name The waters are muddied further by components that require a permission to be listed or provided explicitly. Some use the Zope 2 name, some use the Zope 3 name. The other problem is that a <permission /> ZCML directive does not actually register a Zope 2 style permission, it merely maps an existing permission to a new name. Since Zope 2 permissions spring into existence in difficult-to-explain ways, that causes a lot of confusion. Finally, there is not total parity between Zope 2 security and Zope 3 security. Zope 2 cannot protect 'property set', for example. To this end, Five throws exceptions if you use a ZCML <class /> directive with set_attributes or or set_schema. Whilst this makes sense, it makes it harder to re-use existing packages that do have that kind of protection in place. Since the concept does not exist in Zope 2, I think it makes sense to ignore this with a warning, rather than error. So, here is what I'd like to propose, ideally for Zope 2.12: 1) Use an event handler to ensure that any <permission /> declared in ZCML actually creates a valid, Zope 2 permission. I have working code for this here which we could put in Products.Five with ease. http://dev.plone.org/collective/browser/collective.autopermission/trunk/col… Benefits: Creating new permissions becomes more predictable. Risks: None obvious. The event handler will not override permissions that already exist. 2) Emit a warning instead of an error in Five's handler for the <class /> directive when set_attributes or set_schema are used. Benefits: Easier to re-use existing packages Risks: The attributes won't actually be protected. However, since Zope 2 doesn't have the concept of protecting 'set' (or security proxies) then I'm not sure there's a problem of expectation. 3) Change the Permission class in AccessControl so that it tries to look up an IPermission utility and use the title of that utility as the permission name, falling back on the current behaviour of using the passed permission name directly. Benefits: Should transparently allow any invocation of the Zope 2 API to use Zope 3 permission names, allowing us to document that the dotted permission name is the canonical name everywhere. Risks: Performance overhead of doing utility lookups. May result in name clashes, but since the permission name is a dotted name and the Zope 2 permission name isn't, I think it's extremely unlikely that this would actually happen in practice. Thoughts? Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book

7 12

conclusions from the "Who wants to maintain Zope 3" thread
by Martijn Faassen 14 Apr '09

14 Apr '09

Hi there, Closing that mega thread, here are some conclusions from it: * many people are quite willing to make sure their existing applications will still work. * people are quite willing to maintain the KGS for Zope 3 and release newer versions. In both cases, the scope of Zope 3 has decreased a lot, as most of the Zope 3 codebase will be shared with the Zope Toolkit, and the Zope 3 KGS will be based on the Zope Toolkit KGS. Concerning installation tools for Zope 3, it looks like some people are interested in this topic. We also discussed possible cooperation between the installation stories within a Zope Toolkit context. People have explicitly said they aren't interested in building-a-community related aspects of maintenance, such as writing documentation about how to install and use Zope 3, websites, etc. Concerning the ZMI, I haven't seen a lot of interest. People do use it in a minimal way to install apps, but the ZMI is rather more involved than that. I've started a new thread to explore that issue. Conclusions: It looks to me like we have support for a limited-scope Zope 3, possibly with a massively cut down ZMI that might be restricted to application installation (and documentation tools). The primary focus is to maintain existing applications, making sure they continue to work (much of that will be making sure the Zope Toolkit still works). So, it looks like Zope 3 will become a very thin layer on top of the Zope Toolkit. Technically this isn't that dissimilar from the way Grok uses the Zope Toolkit, though there's a vast difference in the community approach. Many people will just roll their own applications on top of the Zope Toolkit and may stop caring about Zope 3 altogether. Regards, Martijn

1 0

Zope Tests: 6 OK, 2 Failed
by Zope Tests Summarizer 14 Apr '09

14 Apr '09

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Mon Apr 13 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Tue Apr 14 12:00:00 2009 UTC. There were 8 messages: 8 from Zope Tests. Test failures ------------- Subject: FAILED (failures=1) : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Mon Apr 13 21:00:09 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011461.html Subject: FAILED (failures=1) : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Mon Apr 13 21:06:11 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011464.html Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Mon Apr 13 20:56:05 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011459.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Mon Apr 13 20:58:06 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011460.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.5.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Mon Apr 13 21:02:10 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011462.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.6.1 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Mon Apr 13 21:04:10 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011463.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.5.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Mon Apr 13 21:08:11 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011465.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.1 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Mon Apr 13 21:10:11 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011466.html

1 0

Zope Tests: 8 OK
by Zope Tests Summarizer 13 Apr '09

13 Apr '09

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Sun Apr 12 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Mon Apr 13 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: Sun Apr 12 20:40:43 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011451.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Apr 12 20:42:48 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011452.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Apr 12 20:44:49 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011453.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.5.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Apr 12 20:46:49 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011454.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.6.1 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Apr 12 20:48:49 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011455.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Apr 12 20:50:51 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011456.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.5.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Apr 12 20:52:56 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011457.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.1 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Apr 12 20:54:57 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011458.html

1 0

Zope 2.12 zpt "test" tab error: can other people reproduce this?
by Chris Withers 13 Apr '09

13 Apr '09

Hi All, In Zope 2.12, clicking the "Test" tab on a zpt in the zmi gives: Traceback (innermost last): Module ZPublisher.Publish, line 119, in publish Module ZPublisher.mapply, line 77, in mapply Module ZPublisher.Publish, line 42, in call_object Module Shared.DC.Scripts.Bindings, line 324, in __call__ Module Shared.DC.Scripts.Bindings, line 361, in _bindAndExec Module App.special_dtml, line 185, in _exec Module DocumentTemplate.DT_In, line 634, in renderwob Module DocumentTemplate.DT_Raise, line 68, in render Any ideas? Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk

1 0

Five browser views and zpt macros?
by Chris Withers 13 Apr '09

13 Apr '09

Hi All, Am I right in thinking that in days gone by you could do: <browser:page for="*" name="standard_template.pt" template="standard_template.pt" permission="zope2.View" /> ...which would then allow you to use the macros from that zpt as follows: <html metal:use-macro="context/@@standard_template.pt/macros/main"> If so, how come this doesn't work in Zope 2.12 and what should I use instead? Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk

1 0