- Zope-Dev - Zope lists

Zope.pipeline proposal
by Shane Hathaway 26 Feb '09

26 Feb '09

Hi all, I've put up a draft of a zope.pipeline proposal: http://wiki.zope.org/zope3/ZopePipeline The proposal is intended to explain my thoughts on the subject more thoroughly. Shane

8 26

Zope Tests: 6 OK
by Zope Tests Summarizer 26 Feb '09

26 Feb '09

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Wed Feb 25 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Thu Feb 26 12:00:00 2009 UTC. There were 6 messages: 6 from Zope Tests. Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Feb 25 20:23:18 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-February/011187.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Feb 25 20:25:21 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-February/011188.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Feb 25 20:27:21 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-February/011189.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.5.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Feb 25 20:29:21 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-February/011190.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Feb 25 20:31:21 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-February/011191.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.5.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Feb 25 20:33:22 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-February/011192.html

1 0

Re: [Zope-dev] [Checkins] SVN: Zope/trunk/README.txt The zope-license@zope.org address is bouncing.
by Baiju M 26 Feb '09

26 Feb '09

Can anyone please verify this change. As it is related to license, I thought just get confirmation from here. Regards, Baiju M On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Baiju M <baiju.m.mail(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Log message for revision 97294: > The zope-license(a)zope.org address is bouncing. > So, replaced it with zope-dev(a)zope.org > > > Changed: > U Zope/trunk/README.txt > > -=- > Modified: Zope/trunk/README.txt > =================================================================== > --- Zope/trunk/README.txt 2009-02-26 11:23:12 UTC (rev 97293) > +++ Zope/trunk/README.txt 2009-02-26 11:28:04 UTC (rev 97294) > @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ > ------- > > The Zope License is included in ``ZopePublicLicense.txt``. Send your > -feedback about the license to zope-license(a)zope.org. > +feedback about the license to zope-dev(a)zope.org. > > Bug tracker > ----------- > > _______________________________________________ > Checkins mailing list > Checkins(a)zope.org > http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/checkins >

2 1

Five: Creating permissions
by Martin Aspeli 25 Feb '09

25 Feb '09

Hi, One thing that causes a lot of confusion in the Plone world is that the <permission /> directive does not actually create permissions. Or rather, it does, in the Zope 3 sense, since it creates IPermission utilities, but in the Zope 2 sense, those are not permissions. Five has a security policy that considers the 'title' attribute of an IPermission utility to contain a Zope 2 permission string, and calls getSecurityManager().checkPermission() with this as an argument. The Zope 2 style permission has to come from somewhere else, though. It can come from an interaction with a ClassSecurityInfo, for example, or a view registration. At least, I think so, I can't really figure out how it works. :) What I do know, is that a plain <permission /> is not enough, and that in some cases, nothing else will tickle the permission into existence. One example is if you created a permission only to use it in a CMF workflow. The workaround is normally to call Products.CMFCore.permissions.setDefaultRoles. This has a comment that it ought to be in AccessControl, but basically it just modifies some AccessControl data structures to create a permission with a default set of roles. I think the fact that this workaround is necessary is a bug. The <permission /> directive is supposed to be used to declare new permissions, but it does not do that fully in Zope 2. An easy bug fix would be to put something like this into Five: <subscriber for="zope.security.interfaces.IPermission zope.component.interfaces.IRegistered" handler=".permissions.create_permission" /> def create_permission(permission_utility, event): permission = permission_utilty.title roles = () registered = _registeredPermissions if not registered.has_key(permission): registered[permission] = 1 Products.__ac_permissions__=( Products.__ac_permissions__+((permission,(),roles),)) mangled = pname(permission) setattr(ApplicationDefaultPermissions, mangled, roles) The body of this function is copied from CMF's setSecurityInfo. It'd also be nice if you could set up some app-root roles using the <grant /> directive from zope.securitypolicy, though I don't really know how that would work yet. What do you think? Could we put this in as a bugfix? Cheers, Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book

2 1

Bespin - a new hope for Zope 2 TTW development ?!
by Baiju M 25 Feb '09

25 Feb '09

Hi, I wonder whether new development patterns are going to emerge after this :) https://bespin.mozilla.com/ Regards, Baiju M

2 1

Consensus on the ZMI and zope.app.* namespace. (Was: SVN: zope.app.openidconsumer/ New library for OpenID auth in Zope 3)
by Dan Korostelev 25 Feb '09

25 Feb '09

2009/2/25 Martijn Faassen <faassen(a)startifact.com>: > > I hope in fact zope.app.* will soon become a dumping ground for > deprecated packages providing legacy ZMI support. Of course that will > need the consensus that the ZMI *is* legacy software. I think do we > already have a consensus that packages that provide other useful > functionality shouldn't be providing ZMI support within the same > package. Though it's a very big +1 from me that packages providing useful functionality shouldn't contain ZMI-related stuff within the same package, and that's our goal, I wouldn't say that ZMI is a legacy software, as it's very useful out of box and can be easily extended to make real use of Zope. I'd rather say that ZMI is an example of extensible application built on top of zope frameworks and it should be positioned like that. BTW, I have a thought about an additional refactoring strategy: we could move ZMI-related packages to separate packages, like zmi.* or something, leaving imports in zope.app.* and making zope.app.* really deprecated. That way we can state that ZMI is not the Zope, but something built on it. And this way gives us more refactoring freedom :) Any thoughts? -- WBR, Dan Korostelev

2 1

Zope Tests: 6 OK
by Zope Tests Summarizer 25 Feb '09

25 Feb '09

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Tue Feb 24 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Wed Feb 25 12:00:00 2009 UTC. There were 6 messages: 6 from Zope Tests. Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Feb 24 20:23:24 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-February/011181.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Feb 24 20:25:28 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-February/011182.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Feb 24 20:27:30 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-February/011183.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.5.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Feb 24 20:29:30 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-February/011184.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Feb 24 20:31:31 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-February/011185.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.5.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Feb 24 20:33:31 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-February/011186.html

1 0

Re: [Zope-dev] SVN: zope.app.openidconsumer/ New library for OpenID auth in Zope 3
by Martijn Faassen 25 Feb '09

25 Feb '09

Shane Hathaway wrote: > Log message for revision 97183: > New library for OpenID auth in Zope 3 > > > Changed: > A zope.app.openidconsumer/ One question: why is this in zope.app? I think there's a consensus we're trying to pull as much from zope.app as possible. Is this going to provide a ZMI UI at all? If not, I'd suggest putting it in zope.* Regards, Martijn

5 8

Re: [Zope-dev] SVN: Zope/trunk/ Started on a more high-level `what's new` document
by Hanno Schlichting 24 Feb '09

24 Feb '09

Stephan Richter wrote: > On Tuesday 24 February 2009, Hanno Schlichting wrote: >> +This version of Zope2 is compatible with and is based on Zope 3.5. > > Zope 3.5 has not been released. ;-) In fact development has just started. What > KGS version do you guys use? This one: http://download.zope.org/zope3.5/3.5dev/versions.cfg copied locally into Zope2 SVN trunk on 2009-02-08 the last time. Plus a couple of manual updates to packages as per: http://svn.zope.org/Zope/trunk/versions-zope2.cfg?rev=96902&view=markup Zope 2.11 included Zope 3.4, now its time for 3.5 (which we need for Python 2.5 / 2.6 support anyways). We are still in early alpha here. By the time we move on to beta, 3.5 will hopefully have stabilized a bit. Hanno

2 2

z3c.jsonrpc relase
by Roger Ineichen 24 Feb '09

24 Feb '09

Hi jukart I just released the newest z3c.jsonrpc version including your changes. btw, does someone have a good idea how we can handle an Unauthorized error with JSON-RPC? Should we use an error view concept and include a JavaScript method which can handle a special error code/message from the server and show a kind if login form? Any hints or does somebody know a framework which supports such an implementation? Regards Roger Ineichen _____________________________ END OF MESSAGE

2 2