June 1999 - Zope - Zope lists

RE: [Zope] win32 binaries for Zope 2 ?
by Miller, John M. 17 Jun '99

17 Jun '99

I've been trying (not very hard, admittedly) to add a little spark to that glimmer. I haven't had much time as I am in the midst of changing assignments at work, but I have gotten so far as to see a bunch of ld errors when the build script tries to make shared libraries for Zope's C extensions. The problem is very likely a mixture of path setup problems on my machine and a great dearth of understanding on my part on how Cygwin is used to build shared libraries (err, DLL's in Windows-speak). Hopefully I will get the opportunity to learn more about all this and find out what's really going on. If anybody else has had any experience I most heartily encourage you to share, Zope on cygwin could be a great alternative to those of us without access to Linux or Developer Studio trying to find useful things to do while at work! Thanks, John Miller DDASC x1219 > -----Original Message----- > From: michel(a)digicool.com [SMTP:michel@digicool.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 1999 11:08 PM > To: Kent Tenney > Cc: zope(a)zope.org > Subject: Re: [Zope] win32 binaries for Zope 2 ? > > Kent Tenney <ktenney(a)win.bright.net> writes: > > > are they available? if so where? > > if not, when? > > > > TIA > > Kent > > > > There aren't any any alpha binaries for any platform. This is > intentional. You must be able to compile your own to get an alpha > working. Binaries are provided for betas. > > Unfortunately this means we seldom hear from the Windows crowd (other > than a few hard core windows folks with compilers) due to the > expensive nature of most windows compiler products. > > There is, however, a glimmer of hope with cygwin. If you can get Zope > to compile with cygwin and gcc, then you're on. Please pass on your > experiences if you do. > > If I had Windows, I'd give it a go myself. > > -Michel > > > _______________________________________________ > > Zope maillist - Zope(a)zope.org > > http://www.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope > > > > (For developer-specific issues, use the companion list, > > zope-dev(a)zope.org - http://www.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ) > > _______________________________________________ > Zope maillist - Zope(a)zope.org > http://www.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope > > (For developer-specific issues, use the companion list, > zope-dev(a)zope.org - http://www.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )

2 1

RE: [Zope] Zope performance too low ?
by Michel Pelletier 17 Jun '99

17 Jun '99

> -----Original Message----- > From: Alexander Staubo [mailto:alex@mop.no] > Sent: Thursday, June 17, 1999 10:36 AM > To: Zope Mailing List (E-mail) > Subject: RE: [Zope] Zope performance too low ? > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: zope-admin(a)zope.org [mailto:zope-admin@zope.org]On Behalf Of > >Michel Pelletier > > Ouch. These extremely low transfer rates bother me. The theoretical > bandwidth on a local machine transfer should be way, way higher. Otoh, > your document was very small, so the stop/start, connect/teardown > margins would be relatively high. I'd like to see benchmarks > with longer > (>3KB) documents. > I think these numbers are low because the trasfer was so fast and small, the mathmatical precision of the calculation was effected. I don't know how 'ab' calculates time, but it probably uses some less than high resolution system call. > > Yep, but ASP, PHP, Cold Fusion, etc. have proven to be very, > very fast. > I can see PHP being convincingly 'proven' to be fast, but I have doubts about the validity *any* comercial company says about their closed source program. Have there been independant benchmarks? > > True, although your users (or you clients :-)) may be your best > benchmark. > Yes we love our users. ;) -Michel

1 0

RE: [Zope] Zope performance too low ?
by Alexander Staubo 17 Jun '99

17 Jun '99

>-----Original Message----- >From: zope-admin(a)zope.org [mailto:zope-admin@zope.org]On Behalf Of >Michel Pelletier >Sent: 17. juni 1999 16:14 >To: 'christian(a)riddlers.com'; Brian Lloyd; zope(a)zope.org >Subject: RE: [Zope] Zope performance too low ? > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Christian Andreassen [mailto:christian@riddlers.com] >> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 1999 4:33 AM >> To: 'Brian Lloyd'; zope(a)zope.org >> Subject: RE: [Zope] Zope performance too low ? [snip] >Same as above, but with two concurrent requests: > > Ran ab as: "./ab -n 1000 -c 2 http://aldous:9673/test" > > Bechmark output: > > Concurrency Level: 2 > Time taken for tests: 26.026 seconds > Requests per second: 38.42 > Transfer rate: 11.41 kb/s received > > >Same as above, with 4 concurrent requests: > > Concurrency Level: 4 > Time taken for tests: 26.738 seconds > Requests per second: 37.40 > Transfer rate: 11.13 kb/s received Ouch. These extremely low transfer rates bother me. The theoretical bandwidth on a local machine transfer should be way, way higher. Otoh, your document was very small, so the stop/start, connect/teardown margins would be relatively high. I'd like to see benchmarks with longer (>3KB) documents. >One problem with *both* of our benchmarks is that they are running on >the same machine in both cases. Also, what are we >benchmarking against? >Another 'application server'? How would ASP compare? or PHP? How can >you compare two wildly different technologies (PHP has no >infrastructure, object model, object orientation, standard managment >interface, standard security model, acquisition etc. the list goes on >for miles)? I suspect Zope would blow the doors off of any old CGI >script that has to spawn on every hit. Yep, but ASP, PHP, Cold Fusion, etc. have proven to be very, very fast. I suspect the main explanation is (a) they're in-process solutions tightly integrated with the web server (except for Cold Fusion, which iirc has a client stub that uses IPC to talk to the CF server, much like Zope on Win32 today), and (b) they're not written in Python. [snip] >What this proves, is that benchmarks are very strange things. I trust >politicians more than I trust benchmarks, including my *own* >benchmarks. True, although your users (or you clients :-)) may be your best benchmark. >>The reality of the situation comes from real life experience. Zope has >been proven to scale extremly well, and will only get better. > >> BTW, how is www.zope.org configured? Do you see the same >> drastic difference >> between static pages and Zope pages there? >> > >No, the performance is quite nice. > >> >> Christian Andreassen: christian(a)riddlers.com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Zope maillist - Zope(a)zope.org >> http://www.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope >> >> (For developer-specific issues, use the companion list, >> zope-dev(a)zope.org - http://www.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ) >> > >_______________________________________________ >Zope maillist - Zope(a)zope.org >http://www.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope > >(For developer-specific issues, use the companion list, >zope-dev(a)zope.org - http://www.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ) >

1 0

RE: [Zope] Managing users in sub-folders
by Michel Pelletier 17 Jun '99

17 Jun '99

> -----Original Message----- > From: Phil Harris [mailto:phil@philh.org] > Sent: Thursday, June 17, 1999 6:31 AM > To: zope(a)zope.org > Subject: [Zope] Managing users in sub-folders > > > Hi all, > > I have a small test system set up and want to allow a role to > manage users, > not the Manager or Owner but a role called 'author'. > > What properties would I have to set to allow this role to > manage users for a > specific directory but not to manage any other stuff? > In the specific directory you want to give the 'author' role permission in, click on Security and create the role 'Author' (adding new roles is at the bottom of the security screen, below all the permissions). Give or take what permissions you want the author role to have in that folder. Next, go into the user folder *for that folder* (you may have to make one first) and click on security, and give the 'Author' role the permission 'Manage Users'. -Michel > TIA > > Phil > phil(a)philh.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Zope maillist - Zope(a)zope.org > http://www.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope > > (For developer-specific issues, use the companion list, > zope-dev(a)zope.org - http://www.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ) >

1 0

RE: [Zope] Login Button?
by Michel Pelletier 17 Jun '99

17 Jun '99

> -----Original Message----- > From: Phil Harris [mailto:phil@philh.org] > Sent: Thursday, June 17, 1999 6:35 AM > To: zope(a)zope.org > Subject: [Zope] Login Button? > > > Hi all, > > What part of the Zope-mystery would I call to make use of a > login button, I > know how to check for particular access, but I would like to > create a page > that has certain functionality for 'anonymous' but offers > more functionality > if the user authenticates after clicking on a button/link/etc. > This is untested, and possibly wrong, but: You could make a link to a DTML method with the following DTML:    This will prompt the user to login, and if they log in successfully, redirect them back to the page with all your little s and such to check their access privledges. Make sense? -Michel > TIA > > Phil > phil(a)philh.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Zope maillist - Zope(a)zope.org > http://www.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope > > (For developer-specific issues, use the companion list, > zope-dev(a)zope.org - http://www.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ) >

1 0

RE: [Zope] Zope performance too low ?
by Michel Pelletier 17 Jun '99

17 Jun '99

> -----Original Message----- > From: Christian Andreassen [mailto:christian@riddlers.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 17, 1999 4:33 AM > To: 'Brian Lloyd'; zope(a)zope.org > Subject: RE: [Zope] Zope performance too low ? > > > > I'm not that familiar with ab, but you don't give a lot of > > information on your setup here (processor, memory, load > > (discounting zope), publishing mechanism (pcgi? ZServer? mod_pcgi?), > > details of the DTML used), which would be helpful to put this kind > > of information in context. > > I forgot. The server is a Pentium 200 with 96MB RAM, running Redhat > Linux 5.2, Apache 1.3.4 and Zope 1.10.2. There was no other > significant > load on the server when I did the tests. The publishing mechanism is > pcgi. > Hmm.. is the first request from the benchmark software the request that fires up Zope? Remember, this is a 5 second+ delay between the very first request and it's response while Zope loads. This can explain why you got less than 3 requests per second. Also, a 50 request trial is pretty short. After seeing your mail, I ran some benchmarks of my own. I have distilled out everything but the requests per second figure, like you did. Note, that my benchamarks are a completely different setup than yours, which probably helps to explain why I got 20 times the performance you did. Machine: PII 350Mhz, 256M RAM OS: Red Hat Linux 5.2 Runtime: No X Windows, one emacs, two shells, various daemons free report before benchmarks: total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 257048 138332 118716 18432 44312 72200 -/+ buffers/cache: 21820 235228 Swap: 258744 228 258516 Standalone benchmark: Description: Ran Zope 2.0 alpha 2 as: "python1.5.2 z2.py -d 216.164.72.2" Ran ab as: "./ab -n 1000 http://aldous:9673/test" The test document contains:  <h2></h2> <p> This is the  Document. </p>  Benchmark output: Concurrency Level: 1 Time taken for tests: 27.523 seconds Requests per second: 36.33 Transfer rate: 10.79 kb/s received Same as above, but with two concurrent requests: Ran ab as: "./ab -n 1000 -c 2 http://aldous:9673/test" Bechmark output: Concurrency Level: 2 Time taken for tests: 26.026 seconds Requests per second: 38.42 Transfer rate: 11.41 kb/s received Same as above, with 4 concurrent requests: Concurrency Level: 4 Time taken for tests: 26.738 seconds Requests per second: 37.40 Transfer rate: 11.13 kb/s received One problem with *both* of our benchmarks is that they are running on the same machine in both cases. Also, what are we benchmarking against? Another 'application server'? How would ASP compare? or PHP? How can you compare two wildly different technologies (PHP has no infrastructure, object model, object orientation, standard managment interface, standard security model, acquisition etc. the list goes on for miles)? I suspect Zope would blow the doors off of any old CGI script that has to spawn on every hit. And requests per second is our only benchmark parameter, what about speed vs. object database size? ZODB is so well engineered I suspect a benchmark in this area would be promising. and how about DTML rendering speed? Or ZServer vs. PCGI? What this proves, is that benchmarks are very strange things. I trust politicians more than I trust benchmarks, including my *own* benchmarks. The reality of the situation comes from real life experience. Zope has been proven to scale extremly well, and will only get better. > BTW, how is www.zope.org configured? Do you see the same > drastic difference > between static pages and Zope pages there? > No, the performance is quite nice. > > Christian Andreassen: christian(a)riddlers.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Zope maillist - Zope(a)zope.org > http://www.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope > > (For developer-specific issues, use the companion list, > zope-dev(a)zope.org - http://www.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ) >

1 0

Use Amaya! Even PCWeek recommends it! -- WAS: IE/Netscape Authoring ... ...
by Bryan J. Smith 17 Jun '99

17 Jun '99

Use Amaya! Even PCWeek recommends it! -- WAS: IE/Netscape Authoring ... From: "Barry Reicherter" <breicherter(a)ex-pressnet.com > I can't stand what FP does to code. We banned it on > our web team. The reason I asked about FP Express > was because it was a free utility that comes > with IE and getting Communicator into organizations > that have standardized on IE might be tough. I'll > look into WebDAV more. Thanks for the reply. >From the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) themselves, it is the ONLY TRUE WYSIWYG HTML Editor (i.e. no "preview" BS like IE/Netscape, TRUE WYSIWYG) and produces 100% pure DTD-defined [X]HTML 4.0 with CSS 1 support. It also supports the full HTTP 1.1 spec (for compliant HTTP 1.1 servers like uploading and security). Since it supports ALL HTML 4.0 tags, there is no reason to manually edit your code. And even if you do (and interject non-standard HTML), I have found it still keeps the code nice and pretty (I use OpenSource GVIM on both UN*X and Windows, simple but nice syntax colored HTML editing -- but rarely needed when using Amaya). LIKE ZOPE, IT IS OPENSOURCE! And runs on numerous platforms. Here is the *VERY FAVORABLE* ZD PCWeek Review: http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,406026,00.html One thing ZD liked about Amaya OVER EVERYTHING ELSE is the use of Styles like a word processor does. Highlight and apply ... very simple, but very powerful. And best of all, produces 100% standard HTML! The only thing they found wrong with Amaya was using existing documents that do not conform to a DTD. I love how they say "Web pages with nonstandard HTML don't display properly." All I can say is how are nonstandard HTML pages supposed to be displayed 'normally'??? Compared to what??? Netscape, Internet Explorer, Opera, etc...??? Basically, if you are going to write non-standard HTML, you need to write a DTD. And Netscape and Microsoft need to learn how to do that for their respective editors (of course, they forget this little responsibility!). That way, what you see is what you get. Until then, Amaya is the lone star in that crowd. -- The BS -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org,bjs@crc.com Software Engineer http://www.smithconcepts.com/legal.html ************************************************************** UNIX is to operating systems what democracy is to nations, not the greatest design, but the best we know of. But in the case of both, there are only as good as the level of freedom people have to change them. As technology has brought about the need and feasibility for "true" democracy, technology has also brought about the need as well as feasibility for "true" UNIX.

2 1

RE: [Zope] Zope does not find import
by Michel Pelletier 17 Jun '99

17 Jun '99

> -----Original Message----- > From: steve(a)hosys.com [mailto:steve@hosys.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 1999 11:54 PM > To: zope(a)zope.org > Subject: [Zope] Zope does not find import > > > PersistentExtra.py can't find Persistence, I don't see a file > or directory > named > Persistence ? Using Zope-1.11.0pr1-win32-x86.exe > > >>> import Project > Traceback (innermost last): > File "<stdin>", line 1, in ? > File "Project.py", line 2, in ? > from Globals import HTMLFile, MessageDialog, Persistent > File "C:\ZOPE\lib\python\Globals.py", line 90, in ? > import Acquisition, ComputedAttribute, App.PersistentExtra, os > File "C:\ZOPE\lib\python\App\PersistentExtra.py", line 87, in ? > from Persistence import Persistent > ImportError: cannot import name Persistent > Did you compile the C extensions? I suggest dowloading the 1.10.3 binary for Windows if you don't have a C compiler. 1.11.0.pr1 was a pre-release, and the entire 1.11 line has been turned into 2.0 (which is in alpha, no binaries there either). -Michel > > _______________________________________________ > Zope maillist - Zope(a)zope.org > http://www.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope > > (For developer-specific issues, use the companion list, > zope-dev(a)zope.org - http://www.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ) >

1 0

Re: [Zope] squishdot syntax
by Andrew M. Kuchling 17 Jun '99

17 Jun '99

Scott Lewis writes: >as readers of that webpage know, the abbreviation of slashdot is /. i >tried to come up with a similar abbreviation for squishdot, but got >stumped from start: where is the squish key? i started to just use >~. no, how about *.? #.? In the Jargon File, one name for '#' is 'splat', which is similiar to 'squish'. (http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/ASCII.html) So, #. is one possibility. *. is another, notionally because an asterisk may resemble a squished bug. Or, change the name to BangDot and use !. as the short form. -- A.M. Kuchling http://starship.python.net/crew/amk/ The universe may / be as great as they say. / But it wouldn't be missed / if it didn't exist. -- Piet Hein

1 0

Zope 2.0.0a1 feedback & bug-reports
by Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer 17 Jun '99

17 Jun '99

Hi ! I've recently installed zope 2.0.0a1 on a couple of machines (all using apache 1.3.6 & pcgi) and ran into some minor problems - I hope reporting them will further improve zope. time.tzname one linux libc5 based python 1.5.2 installation doesn't provide time.tzname - the ImportError in DateTime.py should be caught PCGI_EXE & execl this was a tricky one: under one installation I had an old python 1.5 in /usr/bin and a new python 1.5.2 in /home/xxx/opt/python-1.5.2/bin/. But because the pcgi-wrapper uses execl the wrong binary was called at pcgi-time ! Solution: is PCGI_EXE is an absolute path, then use execlp instead of execl. PCGI_EXE & permissions if the pcgi-wrapper cannot execute the binary or not access the directory of the binary a more informative error message would really help first time installers sys.version related to above, one of the first tests should be a check that the version of python zope is running under is really at least 1.5.2 apache rewriting Assume that I rewrite /foo/Zope to /foo/cgi-bin/Zope.cgi for passing HTTP auth. information. This works fine for the first access, but then all references within the zope generated pages point to /foo/cgi-bin/Zope.cgi/whatever and no further rewriting is done from this point on - so management is not possible. A workaround is to set SCRIPT_NAME=/foo/Zope in Zope.cgi, but I think this problem should be handled by zope. Regards, Markus P.S. the CVS server seems to be down ----- Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer <markus.oberhumer(a)jk.uni-linz.ac.at> ----- ----- http://wildsau.idv.uni-linz.ac.at/mfx/ ----- ----- 5E CB 5C 85 DE AF 9E BF E9 DA 7E 6A 39 F8 CC 67 ----- 3 WARPS TO URANUS

2 1