- Zope-Dev - Zope lists

SAP SSO feature for Zope/LDAPUserFolder
by Dirk Datzert 26 Jun '05

26 Jun '05

Hi, we have Zope 2.6.4 and 2.7.6 with LDAPUserFolder and CookieCrumbler in use. One of our next goals is to integrate the Single-Sign-On-Ticket feature of SAP-Portal. SAP sent a cookie called MYSAPSSO2 which contains a certified signature and the Login-Name of a user. Normally the Login-Name will be validated by LDAPUserFolder with password against LDAP-Directory and the roles of the user will be assigned to the user object. We have now an external web-service which can validate the MYSAPSSO2-Ticket and return the Login-Name. I'm looking now for the best way to integrate/rewrite CookieCrumbler/LDAPUserFolder to take the validated Login-Name and read the roles of the user out of the LDAP-directory. Any ideas ? Maybe comments by Jens or Shane ? Regards, Dirk -- Geschenkt: 3 Monate GMX ProMail gratis + 3 Ausgaben stern gratis ++ Jetzt anmelden & testen ++ http://www.gmx.net/de/go/promail ++

4 7

ZOBD and pointers
by Yair Benita 21 Jun '05

21 Jun '05

Hi All, As my ZODB data files become larger and larger I am looking at ways to make the structure of my objects more efficient. To simplify my question, suppose I have two different classes and both contain a list of a objects from a third class: class x has the attribute x.elements = [objects of class z] class y has the attribute y.elements = [objects of class z] As far as I understand python the lists x.elements and y.elements contain pointers to the z objects previously defined. What I wanted to know is how ZODB handles that (or maybe I should say: how pickle handles that) when saving to a file. Will the pointers be converted to a copy of the z class objects or will one copy of the z class objects be saved and than the x.elements and y.elements will still be a list of pointers? Thanks for the help, Yair -- Yair Benita Utrecht University The Netherlands

4 8

FW: [Zope-Annce] Zope Foundation ideas
by Hadar Pedhazur 20 Jun '05

20 Jun '05

FYI, for the few of you who may not actually listen to the "bigger" lists ;-) -----Original Message----- From: zope-announce-bounces(a)zope.org [mailto:zope-announce-bounces@zope.org] On Behalf Of Rob Page Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 5:54 PM To: zope(a)zope.org; zope-announce(a)zope.org Subject: [Zope-Annce] Zope Foundation ideas In preparation for tomorrow's IRC session (reminder/details below) we have prepared some initial ideas about the Zope Foundation. These are available online at: o http://tinyurl.com/74pd3 Note -- the document is written with phrases like "the Foundation will", "Contributors shall", etc. This is NOT to be interpreted as though these terms/conditions are predetermined. It is written to close in on specific language that avoids misinterpretation. Zope Foundation IRC Session --------------------------- IRC Session Summary: - Who: Zope Corp and Zope Community - What: IRC session to discuss the Zope Foundation - When: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10a - 12p (US EDT) - Where: irc.freenode.net #zope Please send specific questions to: mailto:irc_agenda_topics@zope.com Hope to see you there. Regards, Rob -- Rob Page V: 540.361.1710 Zope Corporation F: 703.995.0412

1 0

Re: [Z3lab] Zope Corporation's Initial Reaction on the ZF Comments
by Martijn Faassen 20 Jun '05

20 Jun '05

Hadar Pedhazur wrote: [clarifications and opinions] Hey, I just wanted to chip in that: * I'm very happy a foundation has been announced. This is what I and others advocated for, starting in earnest after the castle sprint last year. This is a major step in the right direction. Thank you Zope Corporation! I also wish to thank Nuxeo in their active role in taking this further. Some points I think we all agree on: * We all agree that the Foundation should be vendor-neutral. Those of us in business, we're competing and cooperating at the same time, and the Foundation will need to be on the balance. * We all agree that the Foundation should be about more than just vendors. To those of us who are independent, the Foundation needs to listen to their voice as well, not just the vendors. We have extremely significant contributors in the community who are vendor neutral. I need to mention only the authors of the two Zope 3 books currently published. Now on a more personal note: * I am confident that Zope Corporation will do the right thing. Time and time again I've found that Zope Corporation does listen. Let's all not forget this. * From my perspective as a company co-owner: the Foundation should be vendor-friendly. We should accept that one of the reasons it exists is to help vendors sell Zope better. ("its future is assured in a foundation with N members"). This self interest is fine, as long as we can all cooperate in a fair way. (a state of self-interested cooperation is ideal, I'd say, in fact) * It's important for all parties involved to reach clarity about the relationship of the Zope Foundation with existing foundations and initiatives within the Zope community. We dont want uncertainty and confusion and we want to *stimulate* initiatives by the community. The community is after all one of our greatest resources. * From my perspective as a developer: I hope politics won't get into the way of development too much. We'll inevitably and necessarily have politics in the period leading up to the creation of the Foundation, to ensure everybody's interests are being looked after. We'll have some more after the Foundation has been formed. Let's try to stay out of the developers' hair. Many of them don't want to be involved in politics or cannot be on a personal basis as they work for a company. We don't want them worried or pressurized by all of this. Again, the community is one of our greatest resources. Regards, Martijn

2 1

Zope 2.9 goals
by Martijn Faassen 20 Jun '05

20 Jun '05

Hi there, Since Zope 2.8 has now been released, we can start talking about what would be in Zope 2.9. I have some ideas: * newer version of Five included (whatever version is current then) * Zope 3.1 included * Python 2.4 support I think these could all be accomplished without getting too ambitious. Especially the Five work and Zope 3.1 work will mostly happen anyway, so integration should be relatively easy. I don't know much about how involved Python 2.4 support would be; perhaps people who know more can speak up. Then there's something I know little about, but is also believed planned for Zope 2.9: * blob storage, file iterators I believe the work on this is fairly far along already. I'd be happy if this was *all* that changed in Zope 2.9. This way we can release Zope 2.9 in the forseeable future, like, late this year. If Zope 3 is on track there will already be a Zope 3.2 release imminent by then, but I'm okay with Zope 2.x running a version behind in the name of getting things out of the door to the developers. What do people think? Regards, Martijn

12 43

WinBuilders for Zope 2.8
by Mark Hammond 19 Jun '05

19 Jun '05

WinBuilders recently had a number of changes checked in to support later pywin32 versions and numerous fixes. At around the same time WinBuilders was copied into the Zope 2.7 and 2.8 trees - but without these improvements. This is the underlying reason behind the 2.8 binaries for Windows not being correct. I've created a patch that reinstates the lost changes in both the Zope 2.7 and 2.8 trees and attached it to http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope/1782 As mentioned in that collector issue: * inst/WinBuilders has been added to Zope 2.8 without the svn:eol-style=native setting. This property must be set on that entire tree before attempting to apply the patch. Apart from that, the patch applies to both 2.7 and 2.8 * The old WinBuilders (at Packages/WinBuilders) should be removed from CVS to avoid future confusion. The Zope 2.8 binary appears to install and start fine, but all I tested was that the ZMI would open. Another change I snuck in was to add 'SolidCompression=yes' to the Inno file - this reduces the final .exe by about 40% Unfortunately I still haven't heard anything re my contributor agreement, so am unable to make these changes myself. I will ask Sidnei very nicely tomorrow, but if anyone else is able to assist, please just go for it :) Mark

4 9

Zope Corporation's Initial Reaction on the ZF Comments
by Hadar Pedhazur 17 Jun '05

17 Jun '05

My first attempt to post to this list bounced, because I'm not a subscriber. Jim enabled me to post, so I'm resending, without cc'ing the z3lab list again. If you hit reply-all, please add z3lab(a)lists.nuxeo.com to the cc list (if you're allowed to post there as well :-) Hi all. Whew, lots of traffic, with good ideas and comments made by all. While all of us at Zope Corp appreciate the input, we can't lose sight of two points: 1) Even though lots of the "Rock Stars" of the Zope Community are on one or both of these lists, not all are, and certainly not the entire Zope Community (especially _customers_), so these lists cannot substitute for the entire input stream. 2) We have called for an International IRC chat to discuss this next Tuesday, and tried to pick a time that could work for people from the West Coast of the US all the way to hardy souls in Asia, but at least Eastern Europe. Until people can weigh in and get a sense of everyone's responses, this list is just fodder for that discussion. As such, it is highly unlikely that I will post again on this specific thread to these lists before the IRC, so _please_ don't be offended if you have a fantastic rebuttal to a point that I try to make here, and don't get a response. I just subscribed to the z3lab list (I'm not on dev), and will see your response, and hopefully prepare a ZC response for the IRC. OK, enough with the background, on to make some points :-) I found all of the discussion interesting, but I am also confused by some of it. Specifically, the use of the Plone Foundation as the model that we should all aspire to. If I understand my facts correctly, the Plone Foundation was kicked off (and likely funded by) Computer Associates (CA). They still have 2 board seats as far as I can see. In fact, for all the rhetoric about "individuals", each board member has their company named after them, which implies to me that people looking at that list should assume that they vote the way their company would want them to, not the way they feel about specific issues. Specifically, if Norm Patriquin of CA leaves CA, will he remain a board member, or does CA have some right to appoint another director in his place? If the answer is that CA controls the board seat, then please let's stop pretending that this is all about "individuals". It's obvious that companies do not vote, individuals vote. It is also obvious that individuals who represent companies are more likely to vote in a direction that is good for their company. Nothing wrong with that (IMHO) as long they can't force something on the rest of the members. Second, if we had adopted the Plone Foundation organization verbatim, just changing the word Plone to Zope, would that have been 100% satisfactory to everyone in the Zope world? If so, that would surprise me, but more importantly, it would still have been a "unilateral" move on our part, not to even allow potential dissenters a say. In other words, there is no one model that will work for everyone, and we are being careful not to set _anything_ in stone until we hear everyone's thoughts. If we intended to act unilaterally, and in only our interests, we would have announced a completed Foundation with a "take it or leave it" attitude, or we would have put a very short date on getting it done. Instead, we announced that it would be done by the end of October 2005, so that _this_ process could have a real chance to succeed in an open manner. No one has a gun to our head to do this, and in fact, no one has the slightest leverage on us to do this. We are doing it because we _want_ to, because we think it's the _right thing do_, and because we think the timing is right with Zope 3 ready for prime time, and ready to explode. If we wanted to try and retain the maximum benefit from that explosion, we would probably just keep it all to ourselves. We are not, and we would like at least the benefit of the doubt as to our motives, if not an actual "Thank You" :-) Like Stefane, we too are slightly leaning towards an Eclipse model. In that model, committers are first-class members, and do _not_ pay dues! Companies and Customers (in their term "Consumers") are first-class members too, but not only pay dues (don't worry, we won't charge what they do ;-), but also _have to commit development resources_. No one vendor has _any_ control of _anything_ in the Eclipse Foundation, but they don't apologize for the fact that the underlying software is _strategic_ to the Vendor organizations in their attempt to make a profit. Stefane Fermigier wrote: > IMHO, "vendor-neutral" means, in this context, that the > Foundation must take into account the interests of all the > stakeholders (individual hackers, vendors, customers), and > shouldn't be interpreted as "vendor-free". I agreed, and would add that "vendor-neutral" can also (and IMHO should) be "vendor-friendly". Let's not forget that ZPL is not GPL. We chose a commercially friendly license 7 years ago, and have only made it "friendlier" to people who want to profit from Zope each time we changed it. Why would we spin off the copyright to the code in a _less_ commercially friendly way. Our version of commercial friendliness is equally friendly to individuals and companies, both of who peacefully co-exist in the Zope ecosystem. To summarize, we are doing this for the benefit of all. No matter how bad the Foundation ends up (in the opinion of any individual or company), if they have an interest in Zope, they will already be better off. Under all circumstances, the copyright will be held by the Foundation, and the Foundation's right to call the software "Zope" will exist forever, so all of the previous doomsday predictions about Zope Corp being bought and the Zope trademark used to stop people from working on software called Zope will be over. No to some specific points... Paul Everitt > Can you assure us regarding the most fundamental points: > 1) The Zope Foundation will not have any special terms for > any companies, unless those terms are approved by the > membership. Correct. There will be no special terms. It is possible that there will be one exception to this, but this too hasn't been decided yet. Perhaps, as the "reward" for Zope Corporation donating all of the current copyright to the Foundation, Zope Corporation will be have a permanent board seat. That won't give them any special powers, but will be a recognition of their original contribution. > 2) Voting, bylaws, policies, and *ownership of assets* > will be in the hands of the developers acting as members. > Minor issues are delegated to a freely elected board. Yes. The Foundation (and therefore its members) own all of the assets. As for whether only "Minor" issues get raised to the board, I'm not sure what the intent of that is. In general, even major issues (not code check-ins, which could be construed as a "Minor" issue) can and should be discussed by the board, but then should be presented to the membership for a vote, according to the bylaws. > 3) There are no special terms or negotiation points that > favor one group over another. For example, > CPS-the-product will not be shipped with Z3ECM unless we > agree. Obviously! Paul Everitt wrote: > The ASF has companies like IBM that put legions of > developers on the code. They can live with this policy. > And Apache seems to flourish. Correct. Of course, when the body of work known as Eclipse was first developed at IBM, which Apache was _not_, somehow they chose to create a new structure (The Eclipse Foundation), rather than simply choosing the ASF as the model. So, while they are obviously fine with ASF as members, when their own original contribution was at stake, they went another route. > I can't think of any open source foundation that has > company voting in the governance. There is a role for > companies, as sponsors. But, not in the governance. Stefane pointed out the Eclipse Foundation already, so it's a little surprising that you are still looking for an example of another successful open source Foundation that is also openly vendor friendly, if not vendor driven. *********************************************************** Again, it is highly unlikely that I will respond again before the IRC, even if you are purposely "provocative", so please don't take any personal offense! Thanks for reading this far!

3 2

Re: [Z3lab] Zope Corporation's Initial Reaction on the ZF Comments
by Jim Fulton 17 Jun '05

17 Jun '05

Hadar Pedhazur wrote: ... >>I can't think of any open source foundation that has >>company voting in the governance. There is a role for >>companies, as sponsors. But, not in the governance. > > > Stefane pointed out the Eclipse Foundation already, so it's > a little surprising that you are still looking for an > example of another successful open source Foundation that is > also openly vendor friendly, if not vendor driven. The Python Software Foundation has company members with Company-specific votes. When I attend PSF meetings, I vote twice, once for myself and once for ZC. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:jim@zope.com Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org

1 0

Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces
by Stefane Fermigier 17 Jun '05

17 Jun '05

Stefane Fermigier wrote: > > I hope we will be able to discuss this further next week, but also that > these discussions will be able to procede with the technical side of > things during the sprint next week. s/with/alongside/ Sorry for my poor english. Remember that some of us are not native english speakers and that sometimes communication is made harder for that reason. S. -- Stéfane Fermigier, Tel: +33 (0)6 63 04 12 77 (mobile). Nuxeo Collaborative Portal Server: http://www.nuxeo.com/cps Gestion de contenu web / portail collaboratif / groupware / open source!

1 0

Re: Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces
by Stefane Fermigier 17 Jun '05

17 Jun '05

Has my message been rejected (from zope-dev) or not ? I'm confused. S. Stefane Fermigier wrote: > Paul Everitt wrote: > >> Other foundations approach things a bit differently. (I did quite a >> bit of research on this for the Plone Foundation.) > > > Eric has done some research recently on the different successful Open > Source / Free Software foundations out there that have the mission to > develop and promote great software. > > We're looking for a model that is just as acceptable for the single > developers (who are a very key elements in the community, and provide > some of the best work around - see Stefan or Philip for instance, but > there are many others whitout whom Zope and specially Zope3 would not > exist as we know them today) but also for the companies and > organisations that depend on Zope for their business and are willing to > commit ressources to the development of the software (this includes > software development houses like Zope Corp, Infrae, Nuxeo and 10s of > others, but also companies or universities or non-profit that depend on > Zope for their ongoing operation - like Chalmers university or like the > SD houses customers). > > IMHO, "vendor-neutral" means, in this context, that the Foundation must > take into account the interests of all the stakeholders (individual > hackers, vendors, customers), and shouldn't be interpreted as > "vendor-free". > > The governance model should take that into account, and not limit itself > to "only individuals are members" (of course, companies are represented > by individuals, but what happens if the individual in question leaves a > member company for another?). > > Anyway, the model I have in mind it the one of the Eclipse Foundation, > but I haven't done that much research, and as I said before, I am very > open to discussion. > > I hope we will be able to discuss this further next week, but also that > these discussions will be able to procede with the technical side of > things during the sprint next week. > > Regards, > > S. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -- Stéfane Fermigier, Tel: +33 (0)6 63 04 12 77 (mobile). Nuxeo Collaborative Portal Server: http://www.nuxeo.com/cps Gestion de contenu web / portail collaboratif / groupware / open source!

1 0