- Zope-Dev - Zope lists

Constant values defined in interfaces
by Chris Rossi 05 Apr '09

05 Apr '09

Hello, I was wondering if the Zope collective had given any consideration to allowing constants to be defined in interfaces. To be clear, these are constant values that make up the protocol defined by the interface. Just to have a concrete example, let's say we're modeling an http response: class IHttpResponse(Interface): """Models an HTTP 1.1 response. """ status = Attribute("HTTP status code for this response.") It might be useful to include in our interface spec what some proper values for status code might be and make them available to applications as static constants on the interface class. A naive implementer might do something like this: class IHttpResponse(Interface): """Models an HTTP 1.1 response. """ HTTP_OK = "200 Ok" HTTP_NOT_FOUND = "404 Not Found" status = Attribute("HTTP status code for this response.") As you can see, the HTTP_OK and HTTP_NOT_FOUND constants are conceptually part of the interface--they help define our contract for http responses. We might expect to then be able to do something like this in application code: response.status = IHttpResponse.HTTP_OK Of course, if you try this currently, Interface will complain: InvalidInterface: Concrete attribute, HTTP_OK I did do some poking around in the source code and in the documentation, such as it is, and didn't see anything like constants in interfaces, but it's possible this use case has already been addressed somehow and I am just ignorant of how, in which case, my apologies, and thanks for telling me the already accepted way to do this. If this hasn't been done yet, I can envision doing something like: from zope.interface import Constant class IHttpResponse(Interface): """Models an HTTP 1.1 response. """ HTTP_OK = Constant("200 Ok", "An HTTP Ok response.") HTTP_NOT_FOUND = Constant("404 Not Found", "An HTTP Not Found response") status = Attribute("HTTP status code for this response.") Using descriptors, the results could be both static and immutable. Does this seem useful to anyone besides me? Anyone who's done much Java programming will recognize that I did not have an original idea here. If there is a general buy in, I would be happy to attempt an implementation and submit a patch. Thanks, Chris PS I did find a hack that will let you accomplish this, although it is a hack rather than a supported feature of the component architecture: class IHttpResponse(Interface): """Models an HTTP 1.1 response. """ status = Attribute("HTTP status code for this response.") IHttpResponse.HTTP_OK = "200 Ok" IHttpResponse.HTTP_NOT_FOUND = "404 Not Found" Because the interface class is decorated after the type is instantiated, the InvalidInterface check is avoided.

7 12

Zope Tests: 7 OK, 1 Failed
by Zope Tests Summarizer 05 Apr '09

05 Apr '09

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Sat Apr 4 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Sun Apr 5 12:00:00 2009 UTC. There were 8 messages: 8 from Zope Tests. Test failures ------------- Subject: FAILED (failures=2, errors=1) : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.1 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat Apr 4 20:56:28 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011394.html Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat Apr 4 20:42:22 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011387.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat Apr 4 20:44:26 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011388.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat Apr 4 20:46:26 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011389.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.5.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat Apr 4 20:48:26 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011390.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.6.1 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat Apr 4 20:50:27 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011391.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat Apr 4 20:52:27 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011392.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.5.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat Apr 4 20:54:27 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011393.html

1 0

[Fwd: [Bug 343079] [NEW] Broken distribution (2009-03-15)]
by Tres Seaver 05 Apr '09

05 Apr '09

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Bug 343079] [NEW] Broken distribution (2009-03-15) Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 07:42:00 -0000 From: dmaurer <dieter(a)handshake.de> Reply-To: Bug 343079 <343079(a)bugs.launchpad.net> To: tseaver(a)palladion.com References: <20090315074200.12457.19313.malonedeb(a)potassium.ubuntu.com> Public bug reported: The current (2009-03-12) PyPI distribution for Zope2 2.12.0a1 is broken. 'easy_install'ing it leads to version conflicts for 'zope.component' (3.5.1 versus 3.6.0) in the call of 'mkzopeinstance'. ** Affects: zope2 Importance: Undecided Status: New The breakage is due to the release of the new zope.prinipalregistry egg. We should probably manage a Zope2 indes and tell people to use it when running easy_install, because PyPI is not suitable for the task given setuptools' "incremental requirements discovery" design. 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 iD8DBQFJvT4A+gerLs4ltQ4RAo0LAJ4q83+Ua0hEQUb5ecOhU8IufTcXnQCfV9wd 6eFVN+pmQTi0CW+ki8f+f8M= =zsxY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

5 16

zope.testing.runner: protecting against rogue threads
by Christian Theune 05 Apr '09

05 Apr '09

Hi, if tests spawn non-daemon threads, then the test runner can get stuck. The easiest way that I see is to always --exit-with-status and to make --exist-with-status also call sys.exit() when the tests passed. Any objections? Christian -- Christian Theune · ct(a)gocept.com gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 7 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting and development

3 5

Zope Tests: 6 OK, 2 Failed
by Zope Tests Summarizer 04 Apr '09

04 Apr '09

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Fri Apr 3 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Sat Apr 4 12:00:00 2009 UTC. There were 8 messages: 8 from Zope Tests. Test failures ------------- Subject: FAILED (failures=1) : Zope-trunk Python-2.6.1 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Apr 3 20:53:14 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011383.html Subject: FAILED (failures=3, errors=1) : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.1 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Apr 3 20:59:15 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011386.html Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Apr 3 20:45:09 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011379.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Apr 3 20:47:10 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011380.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Apr 3 20:49:10 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011381.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.5.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Apr 3 20:51:11 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011382.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Apr 3 20:55:14 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011384.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.5.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Apr 3 20:57:15 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011385.html

1 0

Re: [Zope-dev] [Checkins] SVN: zope.annotation/trunk/setup.py Whitespace fixes
by Jacob Holm 03 Apr '09

03 Apr '09

Hi Baiju If this whitespace fix is based on the current style guide, I think the guide needs to be fixed. I find the fixed version much less readable. A function that takes this many arguments should have an exception to the PEP 8 rule of no whitespace around the equals sign used for keyword arguments. I *think* a reasonable rule is that if you split the call over multiple lines with one argument per line, you should add single spaces before and after the equals sign. What does anyone else think? - Jacob Baiju M wrote: > Log message for revision 98773: > Whitespace fixes > > > Changed: > U zope.annotation/trunk/setup.py > > -=- > Modified: zope.annotation/trunk/setup.py > =================================================================== > --- zope.annotation/trunk/setup.py 2009-04-01 21:02:33 UTC (rev 98772) > +++ zope.annotation/trunk/setup.py 2009-04-01 21:13:34 UTC (rev 98773) > @@ -23,14 +23,14 @@ > return open(os.path.join(os.path.dirname(__file__), *rnames)).read() > > setup( > - name = 'zope.annotation', > - version = '3.5.0dev', > - url = 'http://pypi.python.org/pypi/zope.annotation', > - license = 'ZPL 2.1', > - description = 'Object annotation mechanism', > - author = 'Zope Corporation and Contributors', > - author_email = 'zope-dev(a)zope.org', > - classifiers = [ > + name='zope.annotation', > + version='3.5.0dev', > + url='http://pypi.python.org/pypi/zope.annotation', > + license='ZPL 2.1', > + description='Object annotation mechanism', > + author='Zope Corporation and Contributors', > + author_email='zope-dev(a)zope.org', > + classifiers=[ > 'Development Status :: 5 - Production/Stable', > 'Intended Audience :: Developers', > 'License :: OSI Approved :: Zope Public License', > @@ -40,23 +40,23 @@ > 'Topic :: Internet :: WWW/HTTP', > 'Topic :: Software Development', > ], > - long_description = \ > + long_description= \ > read('src', 'zope', 'annotation', 'README.txt') > + '\n\n' + > read('CHANGES.txt'), > - packages = find_packages('src'), > - package_dir = {'': 'src'}, > - namespace_packages = ['zope',], > - install_requires = ['setuptools', > - 'zope.interface', > - 'zope.component', > - 'zope.location', > - 'zope.proxy', > - ], > - extras_require = dict( > - test = ['zope.testing', > - 'ZODB3'], > + packages=find_packages('src'), > + package_dir={'': 'src'}, > + namespace_packages=['zope',], > + install_requires=['setuptools', > + 'zope.interface', > + 'zope.component', > + 'zope.location', > + 'zope.proxy', > + ], > + extras_require=dict( > + test=['zope.testing', > + 'ZODB3'], > ), > - include_package_data = True, > - zip_safe = False, > + include_package_data=True, > + zip_safe=False, > ) > > _______________________________________________ > Checkins mailing list > Checkins(a)zope.org > http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/checkins >

7 7

Zope Tests: 5 OK, 2 Failed, 1 Unknown
by Zope Tests Summarizer 03 Apr '09

03 Apr '09

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Thu Apr 2 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Fri Apr 3 12:00:00 2009 UTC. There were 8 messages: 8 from Zope Tests. Test failures ------------- Subject: FAILED (failures=1) : Zope-trunk Python-2.6.1 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Apr 2 20:53:08 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011375.html Subject: FAILED (failures=3, errors=1) : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.1 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Apr 2 20:59:09 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011378.html Unknown ------- Subject: UNKNOWN : Zope-trunk Python-2.5.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Apr 2 20:51:08 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011374.html Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Apr 2 20:45:06 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011371.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Apr 2 20:47:08 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011372.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Apr 2 20:49:08 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011373.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Apr 2 20:55:08 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011376.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.5.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Apr 2 20:57:09 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011377.html

1 0

Dependencies on new packages should require feature releases
by Christian Theune 03 Apr '09

03 Apr '09

Hi, (this message probably just has a reminder function) in one of my apps I had to upgrade many packages to a lot of new versions suddenly when updating zope.publisher. That was caused because zope.publisher started depending on a new (previously non-existing) package within a bugfix release and I was only interested in that bugfix. Reading the Steering Group decisions, I think that's what the last sentence wants to say, but it abruptly ends mid-sentence. @Martijn: You started writing that sentence, you mind finishing whatever you tried to say? (I think it's what I wanted to say with this mail.) :) Christian -- Christian Theune · ct(a)gocept.com gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 7 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting and development

1 0

Re: [Zope-dev] [Zope] Zope 4.0, maybe not such a bad idea...
by Chris Withers 02 Apr '09

02 Apr '09

Andrew Milton wrote: > | Indeed, but "classic" doesn't have any "bad" connotations as far as I'm > | concerned, and it'll need to keep living as long as Plone relies on it, > | which will be forever... > > Plenty of people use it without plone. You might want to crawl out of > the vacuum you live in. Yes, and I'm one of them, but I don't think it's fair to try and tempt new users into it... I'm happy to be proven wrong by you writing lots of decent docs, picking up maintenance of zope.org and LocalFS ;-) Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk

1 0

Re: [Zope-dev] [Zope] Zope 4.0, maybe not such a bad idea...
by Chris Withers 02 Apr '09

02 Apr '09

Andrew Milton wrote: > | Why does it need to keep living even at old.zope.org? > > Why do you care if it does? Because someone needs to look after the (rather large, ancient and crufty) zope instance in which it lives, and it keeps on tripping up innocent passers-by. I don't think many of these passers by will be put off by the old.zope.org url and we'll still end up with people wondering why LocalFS doesn't work in Zope Classic 4.0 ;-) Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk

1 0