December 2005 - Zope

_v_func_code
by Rakotomandimby Mihamina 13 Dec '05

13 Dec '05

I'm running zope 2.8.3, python 2.3.5 and CPS SVN trunk. I update CPS and get this traceback: Traceback (innermost last): * Module ZPublisher.Publish, line 113, in publish * Module ZPublisher.mapply, line 88, in mapply * Module ZPublisher.Publish, line 40, in call_object * Module Products.ExternalMethod.ExternalMethod, line 229, in __call__ __traceback_info__: ((<CPSDefaultSite at /dedie>, None, 0, 'portlets'), {}, (None, 0, 'portlets')) AttributeError: _v_func_code So that I could not update my CPS. I have no more messages. What could I do? I must update that CPS site... -- A powerfull GroupWare, CMS, CRM, ECM: CPS (Open Source & GPL). Opengroupware, SPIP, Plone, PhpBB, JetSpeed... are good: CPS is better. http://www.cps-project.org for downloads & documentation. Free hosting of CPS groupware: http://www.objectis.org.

2 2

Re: [Zope] zope and LDAP for authorisation
by Marinussen, M.J. (Ria) 13 Dec '05

13 Dec '05

Hi Jens, > > Hi, > > > > I'm looking for a zope product that enables me to use our Active > > Directory LDAP server for verification of login credentials only. > > I want users still stored in Zope, and access to > directories should be > > also something I can handle in Zope, and I don't want to use LDAP > > groups > > because I don't control the LDAP server and there are no > groups on the > > LDAP server I can use. > > > > So really, all I want is that Zope checks the passwords > with the LDAP > > server instead of with it's own userfolder. > > And perhaps, a possibility to check/search for the available > > loginnames > > on the LDAP server when adding a user to the userfolder. > > > > I've checked out LDAPUserFolder but that's not what I'm > looking for (I > > think...). > > I'd say "start coding". There is nothing that fits your (somewhat > strange) requirements. I would suggest you modify those requirements > to come up with a saner plan. Could it be you're thinking too > much in > terms of specific implementation and too little in terms of what the > underlying goals are? > > First of all, what do you gain from "storing users in Zope"? Is your > real goal to make sure only a subset of users from LDAP can access > your site? That goal is easily fulfilled by configuring the > LDAPUserFolder to store role information on the user folder and > disregard the LDAP server. Then you just secure your site by > requiring a certain role and only give that role to the subset of > users you want to let in. > > jens Andreas warned me not to step on your toes ... ;-) I didn't mean to put LDAPUserFolder down but it felt like using a canonball to kill a mosquito (famous Dutch saying) Well I did say I *thought* LDAPUserFolder was not what I was looking for. But since you are the expert on LDAPUserFolder I think I should take that back. What you describe, is what I want to do .. but I thought it would be necessary to store the users in zope to be able to form groups in zope... Perhaps I would have figured it out myself if I was able to get LDAPUserFolder to work but I think I'm missing something... (well actually I'm missing a lot... I don't know much about LDAP so "start coding" is probably not a good idea...) Here is my situation at this moment: I have LDAPUserFolder working in a sense that I can search for users (and find the ldap entries) when I'm in the LDAPUserFolder - Users tab. So far so good. But when I limit access to a folder (in the Security tab on zope) to for example authenticated users and I try to logon to that folder, after authenticating (using the correct LDAP username and password) I get an error that doesn't make sense to me. Googling does not bring a solution. The error is: "TypeError len() of unsized object". (Using wrong (LDAP) credentials get's me a "You are not authorized to access this resource. Username and password are not correct." message.) On the same folder this problem does not occur when I use a native zope user to logon. I'm using on Windows XP Zope 2.7.2-0, python 2.3.5, win32 LDAPUserFolder 2.6 OpenLDAP 2.3.11 And I allso tested on Windows XP with Plone 2.1.1 (is with Zope 2.7.8-final, python 2.3.5, win32) LDAPUserFolder 2.6 OpenLDAP 2.3.11 Do you have any idea what I'm doing wrong? Thanks in advance, Ria

2 1

attribute used to index PDFs?
by Garth B. 13 Dec '05

13 Dec '05

TextIndexNG 3.1.1 Zope 2.8.0 Python 2.3.5 What attribute should be specified when indexing PDFs? I've been using "data". Word docs are indexed properly, but the PDFs aren't. The PDFs are still found with the rest of the files, but the indexed content is not what I expected. To try narrow things down, I set up a seperate test Catalog with only two PDFs. The number of distinct values for indexing these PDFs is around 6600 (which seems a little high for two pdfs with a combined total of 3 pages). In the Catalog tab of my test ZCatalog, the PDFs are listed as type "Unknown". The content type of these PDFs are set to "application/pdf'". (In my other ZCatalog, the PDFs and Word docs are listed as type "File") This is an excerpt from the vocabulary for "f" in my test Catalog's index: ------------------------- f f+æq f0 f2ök f5ô f6 f7ëfü fa false fb8aad1ed82a2cc33e9feb68a3f323 fbt fc fd fdo fe fea feâà ff fg fgiëü fh fib filter filters firstchar fió fl flags flatedecode fm fmx fnaèh font fontbbox fontdescriptor fontfamily fontfile2 fontname fontstretch fontweight footlight format ------------------------- It looks as though the converter isn't doing its job, or the index isn't recognizing the files as PDFs I have manually run pdftotext at the command line with each of the PDFs to see if pdftotext is having trouble and it appears to output the textual content properly. The TextIndexNG Converters tab does recognize it. Do I have a misconfiguration somewhere? Thanks!

2 4

Simple User Folder Setup
by Infor Gates 13 Dec '05

13 Dec '05

Dear zopist I am having problems in setting up Simple User Folder. Error Message: Error Type: UnconfiguredException Error Value: Addition of users has not been configured I have googled around for an answer. However, there is very little info on it. My Configuration: Zope2.8.4 / Windows XP Pro / Postgresql I have copied all (addUser.pys, addUser.sql, editUser.pys editUser.sql, deleteUser.pys deleteUser.sql, getUserIds.pys, getUserIds.sql, getUserDetails.pys, getUserDetails.sql) into the /TEST/acl_users/Contents page as advised in README. Do anyone have similar experiences? Thank you. --------------------------------- Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

3 4

Re: [ZOPE] XML-RPC within ZOPE
by Jan-Ole Esleben 12 Dec '05

12 Dec '05

Chris: the errors I get are always ConflictErrors without any usable tracebacks. I would like to give more information, but it really is very complex when you go a little deeper and would probably not be useful. I'll try to describe it a little better anyway: I have an Object that offers an interface for dispatching methods. It does so by deciding wether the method's object is on the local server or not, and depending on that, calls it via XML-RPC or via the ZOPE context (self). A remote ZOPE server cannot be part of a ZEO backend because there need to be several (hundred) self sustained servers that can act on their own when the connection to the others fails (which is likely rather than possible). But, as I just realised - in an internet context, isn't it possible that something like this could happen without even being part of a design? One ZOPE server's object, say, "LibraryManager", calls an object in another ZOPE server, say "UniversityLibrary", via XML-RPC (because it doesn't even know it's ZOPE). It asks it for a book. The University Library doesn't have it, but it has a service that looks in all the libraries it knows and returns any found occurences. Thus, at some point during that call, it asks the first server's LibraryManager about the book - again, not even knowing that it is a ZOPE server, via XML-RPC. Should this work, and where does it differ from what I'm doing? > > The problem is that it isn't my design, and the design is part of a > > contract. I can't really do anything about that (the major problem is > > that there will be SOAP components that might even need to be > > transparently integrated - which completely excludes ZEO). > Why do you think that? ZEO is simply a single point of persistence for > a group of Zope Application Servers. But what if I don't know which components are ZOPE, and components can be transparently exchanged? Ole

1 1

Re: [Zope] Hooks for methods other than GET/POST on port 80?
by Chris Withers 12 Dec '05

12 Dec '05

(please keep the list CC'ed in) Roman Susi wrote: >> What do you mean by freezes? how did you cause this to happen? > > Surely, this is not only a bug but a security issue leading to DOS > attack, IMHO. Well, it's a pretty weird use case from what I can see... > >> >>> Traceback (most recent call last): >>> File "/usr/local/lib/python2.3/logging/__init__.py", line 674, in emit >>> msg = self.format(record) >>> File "/usr/local/lib/python2.3/logging/__init__.py", line 567, in >>> format >>> return fmt.format(record) >>> File "/usr/local/lib/python2.3/logging/__init__.py", line 369, in >>> format >>> s = s + self.formatException(record.exc_info) >>> File "/usr/local/lib/python2.3/logging/__init__.py", line 342, in >>> formatException >>> traceback.print_exception(ei[0], ei[1], ei[2], None, sio) >>> File "/usr/local/lib/python2.3/traceback.py", line 123, in >>> print_exception >>> print_tb(tb, limit, file) >>> File "/usr/local/lib/python2.3/traceback.py", line 68, in print_tb >>> line = linecache.getline(filename, lineno) >>> File "/usr/local/lib/python2.3/linecache.py", line 14, in getline >>> lines = getlines(filename) >>> RuntimeError: maximum recursion depth exceeded >> >> We need more of the traceback, there is no repeating part here so it's >> impossible to see what's causing the infinite recursion... >> > I am not sure how to get the whole traceback... Well, where did you see the above? > Chris, could you put this into Zope issue tracker (with security tick as > I do not want to make this info public right now)? > (I've tried but I do not have an account there..) No, there's nothing stopping you registering at zope.org and doing this yourself. Furhtermore, I'd guess this is likely a bug in your code and nothing to do with Zope ;-) (of course, I could be wrong on that, but I haven't seen any evidence yet) cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk

3 10

Re: [Zope] XML-RPC within ZOPE
by Jan-Ole Esleben 12 Dec '05

12 Dec '05

The problem is that it isn't my design, and the design is part of a contract. I can't really do anything about that (the major problem is that there will be SOAP components that might even need to be transparently integrated - which completely excludes ZEO). I tried doing my own commits, but it doesn't work, it just bombs earlier (no matter where I do them). I really don't know why, my only guess is that something about the transaction management breaks terribly when you go back and forth between objects without them being able to track it. Only I cannot figure out what. It is not possible to do _really_ explicit transaction management with ZODB, is it? Ole 2005/12/12, Alan Milligan <alan(a)balclutha.org>: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Jan-Ole Esleben wrote: > > OK, the following is the case: > > > > The setup is for functions dispatching either locally or via XML-RPC. > > At the moment, the mechanism I use is to detect locality is flawed and > > thus doesn't work well. So I have local XML-RPC calls where I could > > have global ones. But. > > > > 1. I need that possibility for testing the XML-RPC setup. I cannot set > > up multiple instances for every cheap test. At least I shouldn't have > > to. The very important reason, however, is: > > 2. This is a generic call dispatcher. It is used, for example, for > > object name resolution in a widely deployed system. So, what could > > happen and couldn't happen locally is this: > > Zope isn't CORBA. ZEO is the correct way to scale/cluster Zope's. > > > > > 1. Server1 dispatcher calls, via XML-RPC, Server2. > > 2. Server2 dispatcher calls Server1, which does something locally > > (same communication management object as the dispatcher, maybe another > > local call) and then returns > > > > This is the same problem spread out over two servers, where locality > > isn't possible anymore. The call from Server1 to Server2 must be made > > via XML-RPC and I cannot exclude Server2 calling Server1 back. > > If you really must architect your solution this way, then you are going > to have to do your own transaction management. Your 'local' calls need > to do explicit commit() calls and you're going to have to reread > 'tainted' objects. > > Again, it will take you half an hour to modify your design instead of > half a year to get all the bugs out of your implementation. > > Alan > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFDnN2ACfroLk4EZpkRAkQ7AJ4rTWpmldRq1GoPGIV8r0CT7+VPJwCZAbKB > 5PBuLd5sJgh7QZe1ey8lZ9g= > =3TrG > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >

2 1

Re: [Zope] zdsock
by John Poltorak 12 Dec '05

12 Dec '05

On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 11:32:15AM +0100, Andreas Jung wrote: > WHY? Because 'zdsock' is not an acceptable name. I am running on OS/2 and the path name must start with '\\socket\\'. > --On 4. Dezember 2005 10:26:03 +0000 John Poltorak <jp(a)warpix.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 11:13:29AM +0100, Andreas Jung wrote: > >> > >> > >> > > >> > At the top of sample.conf it says > >> > > >> ># Sample config file for zdctl.py and zdrun.py (which share a schema). > >> > > >> > This sounds like something other than zope.conf. > >> > > >> > >> Is there a real need for you to touch the configuration. Also as very > >> advanced Zope user I've never had the need to touch this configuration > >> for any reason. So what are your reasons? > > > > I need to change the name of the socket. > > > >> > >> -aj > > > > -- > > John -- John

4 16

Re: [Zope] XML-RPC within ZOPE
by Jan-Ole Esleben 12 Dec '05

12 Dec '05

OK, the following is the case: The setup is for functions dispatching either locally or via XML-RPC. At the moment, the mechanism I use is to detect locality is flawed and thus doesn't work well. So I have local XML-RPC calls where I could have global ones. But. 1. I need that possibility for testing the XML-RPC setup. I cannot set up multiple instances for every cheap test. At least I shouldn't have to. The very important reason, however, is: 2. This is a generic call dispatcher. It is used, for example, for object name resolution in a widely deployed system. So, what could happen and couldn't happen locally is this: 1. Server1 dispatcher calls, via XML-RPC, Server2. 2. Server2 dispatcher calls Server1, which does something locally (same communication management object as the dispatcher, maybe another local call) and then returns This is the same problem spread out over two servers, where locality isn't possible anymore. The call from Server1 to Server2 must be made via XML-RPC and I cannot exclude Server2 calling Server1 back. Does this make it a little more of a real problem? Ole 2005/12/12, Alan Milligan <alan(a)balclutha.org>: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Jan-Ole Esleben wrote: > >>It really *is* in your interests to ensure a single request completes > >>all your functional requirements ;) > > > > > > That's not possible unfortunately. The design of the system is rather > > complex, and unalterable in this respect. However, it is not true that > > it is usually possible to fulfil this requirement. What of programs > > running on an operating system that call other programs via that > > operating system? > > > > I don't believe you. > > You have a client application calling your Zope server's bla() > function. It can do this either by HTTP or XML-RPC by choosing the > appropriate Content-Type. > > You've chosen to implement this interface by making other XML-RPC calls > to the same server to complete the task. This is both unnecessary and > bad. Unnecessary because you're doing an RPC when you've got all you > need in local memory. This is bad because you're introducing the > additional overhead of setting up said RPC. Worse, you're now > responsible for your own transaction management because you've split the > task across multiple ZODB connections. > > You need to think about the *correct* way to write your bla() function. > In doing this, you want to be able to take advantage of the automatic > rollback facilities of Zope by keeping all of this in one transaction, > which will also avoid your initial problem of conflict errors. > > Alan > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFDnNZcCfroLk4EZpkRArTDAJ96TGwDy047D09jkmRNbGyD7e+3QgCg0aNZ > lLo0znXi4qvXr5j4SseH2k8= > =hu4V > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >

1 0

Re: [Zope] XML-RPC within ZOPE
by Jan-Ole Esleben 12 Dec '05

12 Dec '05

> It really *is* in your interests to ensure a single request completes > all your functional requirements ;) That's not possible unfortunately. The design of the system is rather complex, and unalterable in this respect. However, it is not true that it is usually possible to fulfil this requirement. What of programs running on an operating system that call other programs via that operating system? Given that that is a requirement that needs to be met, do I have any options? Ole

1 0