- Zope - Zope lists

Five defaultView and REQUEST.URL0
by Maciej Wisniowski 22 Feb '06

22 Feb '06

Hi I've created simple view that just displays few lines of text (with national characters) and URL of the current page (which is received by call to my product method (code below)). I'm using UTF-8. I've used REQUEST.URL0 to generate url. The problem is when I'm accessing my object via it's name (I'mean when defaultView is used) like: http://localhost:8080/my_problem_object I get: 'ascii' codec can't decode byte 0xc4 in position 154: ordinal not in range(128) Suprisingly to me when I'm using: http://localhost:8080/my_problem_object/@@test_uni everything works correclty. Without national characters in Page Template it works OK. When I'm not using self.REQUEST.URL0 it works correctly too. When I use str(self.REQUEST.URL0) everything is good again. Can somebody tell me whether I'm doing something in a wrong way, or maybe it is a bug or feature? I dont understand why there is such a difference between view and default view? Below is a part of my code: ---main class--- class GeneralModule(Folder): """GeneralModule""" (...) def get_obj_url(self): return self.REQUEST.URL0 (...) ---view is--- <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="pl" xml:lang="pl"> <body> <h1> Some unicode characters here: łąka</h1> <span tal:content="python: context.get_obj_url()"></span> </body> </html> ---configure.zcml:--- <five:traversable class=".GeneralModule.GeneralModule" /> <five:defaultViewable class=".GeneralModule.GeneralModule" /> <browser:page for=".GeneralModule.IGeneralModule" template="./zpt/test_uni.zpt" name="test_uni" permission="zope.Public" /> <browser:defaultView for=".GeneralModule.IGeneralModule" name="test_uni" /> ... -- Maciej Wisniowski

1 1

LocalFS problem
by Fernando Martins 21 Feb '06

21 Feb '06

Hi, I'm using LocalFS 1.7rc? and Zope 2.8.? in a Suse system. More importantly for this case, zope is behind Apache 1.39 with module NTLM, through FastCGI, and users folder is a RemoteUserFolder. mod_rewrite and Virtual Host Monster is being used do do some URL rewriting. When I access a file in a LocalFS folder I get the following info, instead of the pdf file (in this case): <open file '/work/docs/MyFile.PDF', mode 'rb' at 0x42310974>. The same file in another folder behind Apache+NTLM works fine. The LocalFS folder accessed in the past through Apache+mod_rewrite without NTLM+RemoteUserFolder used to work fine. The same file in LocalFS accessed through zope directly (another port; no apache) is delivered fine. So, the combination Apache+NTLM+FastCGI+RemoteUserFolder with LocalFS isn't working well. The only clue I have is that I get the file object description rather than the file itself. Any hints? TIA, Fernando

2 2

Re: [Plone-developers] Re: The Zope Software Certification Program and Common Repository Proposal
by Stephan Richter 21 Feb '06

21 Feb '06

On Tuesday 21 February 2006 08:47, whit wrote: > what hopefully zscp would do is allow a code commons at one end (ala > collective, easy entry, friendly to experimentation) and a fully > certified set of components at the other. > > In between, there would be well defined process for how software moves > from the primordial ooze to canon. Well said. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training

1 0

Re: The Zope Software Certification Program and Common Repository Proposal
by Martin Aspeli 21 Feb '06

21 Feb '06

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 21:28:09 -0000, Stephan Richter <stephan.richter(a)tufts.edu> wrote: > I have spent the last two weeks working on a proposal that defines a Zope > Software Certification Program (ZSCP) and a Common Repository that > implements > this process. The proposal is attached to this mail. I welcome any > comments > about it! Hi Stephan, I have only skimmed the document, since it's 1am and I'm going to the mountains tomorrow. I expect a triple-digit post count in this thread when I return. :) I think the proposal is very well put-together. I think it admirably tries to make the Zope 3 community more inclusive of more peripheral developers who simply use the framework, and I think this will benefit Zope immensely if done right. My immediate concern is about resources: Who will have the time or incentive to police the common repository and grant certification? It seems to be a non-trivial process that may end up being quite time-consuming. It may be perceived as too much red tape. It may be perceived as too much centralised control, especially around licensing. At times it may also be open to debate, and a means of resolving disputes would seem necessary. There are certainly a lot of tick-boxes in your table! :-) Secondly, and partly because I'm expecting this to come up in my absence: your proposal is eerily simlar to Alan's two-level Plone collective post to plone-dev, about having an "approved" list of contributors and packages in a fenced-off repository, in addition to the collective. One obvious parallel here, by the way, is with the svn.plone.org/plone repository. That one is controlled by the Plone Foundation, requires a contributor agreement, and imposes restrictions on license and quality (albeit not as formally as you do). I think this is possibly a more valid comparison than with the Collective. I'm actually +1 on your proposal in spirit (if it can be shown to work, and if there is a broad consensus in the community to support it - in fact, this is important: if there is too much division, the proposal would likely be self-defeating) and -1 on his. The reason is that the Plone world is quite different from the Zope 3 world (although there are hard-core Plone developers who sit in both). The Plone community is much larger but naturally also more dispersed. The software is much more narrowly defined (depending on your point of view I suppose, but I mean - it's a CMS, Zope 3 is a framework) and the components developed for it are much closer to the user. Plone thrives on the size and vibrancy of its community. A very large part of its success comes from third party products that people find and marry with Plone to solve their problems. Without the low bar to contributing such components, without an open and very democratic Collective, and without "meta-data" on http://plone.org/products, I don't think this would be possible, certainly not as successful. The uptake of third party product users and contributors, and I think maybe also the quality, has improved quite significantly since we introduced the Products section on plone.org. A framework like Zope 3, and framework-level third party components, thrives more on control and consistency in vision and implementation. (In part, you're solving that with better guidelines around how to write code, guidelines that Zope 3 adopters also benefit from.) I think that the lower down the stack you go, the higher the degree of centralised quality-control needs to be. This, however, is at the expense of perceived eltism and a raised bar to entry. I think that balance is different in Plone than it is in Zope 3. Put differently, I think that *some* Plone components ought to move lower down the stack, target re-usability in different systems, and thus be subject to somewhat different rules. Perhaps these components shouldn't have been Plone components in the first place, or perhaps their evolution would start in Plone and move down the stack. But I think it would be damaging for the Plone community, given its current shape and culture, to impose those rules across the types of components that are higher up the stack - arguably those components which should be "Plone" components still. I'd also note that we solve (or try/continue to solve) some of the visibility and evaluation problems on http://plone.org/products (which is of course open source, albeit GPL, and you can re-use any of this you see fit). Some of those same things, you solve with more technical means - automated testing, common file layouts, XML metadata files. Again, I think these approaches work better at the small-component-high-reusability/framework level than they do with the types of user-facing components that typically land in the Collective. Although you proposal is not technical in design, it's technical in implementation (so to speak). Perhaps it would be fair to say that the Collective is almost entirely social in its implementation. I think it's worked very well. For Plone. Martin P.S. If you have specifics you'd like me to respond to, please cc me, since I'm offline until Sunday night (and it was just getting interesting, damn). -- (muted)

2 1

Double quote in ZSQL Method
by Jason C. Leach 21 Feb '06

21 Feb '06

Hi, In a ZSQL Method, I have tablename.<dtml-sqlvar species type="string"> and I get tablename.'species_value', what I need is tablename."species_value". Any idea how I can get Zope/ZSQL to not put in the single quotes (or use double quotes)? Thanks, Jason. -- ........................................ .... Jason C. Leach .... PGP Key: 0x62DDDF75 .... Keyserver: gpg.mit.edu

5 5

Poskey Errors and BTreeFolder
by Anton Stonor 21 Feb '06

21 Feb '06

Hi there, After five years with plenty of Zope/Plone sites running we are now facing our first ZODB problems: Poskey Errors popping up here and there. And it seems that they are all related to BTreeFolder based objects, e.g. * The CMF/Plone "Member" Folder * portal_memberdata (the CMFMember version) * Archetypes reference_catalog We know how to find (fsrefs.py) and remove them, however new poskey errors are showing up from time to time. Any ideas of how to hunt down what's causing this? And are BTreeFolders particular fragile? /Anton Stonor

2 4

CPS 3.4.0 beta2 released + final bugday tomorrow
by Stefane Fermigier 21 Feb '06

21 Feb '06

CPS 3.4.0 beta2 has been released yesterday. Tarballs/zipballs are available here: http://www.cps-project.org/static/src/CPS-3.4.0beta2.tar.gz http://www.cps-project.org/static/src/CPS-3.4.0beta2.zip We're planning a final release next week (after the CMF 1.6.0 release which is planned for Sunday, February 26th 2006: http://www.zope.org/Products/CMF/CMF-1.6.0-beta/News_Item.2006-02-19.5839) We're also having a bugday tomorrow, wednesday 02/22/2006, on IRC channel #cps on freenet, to sort out and fix the outstanding issues: http://svn.nuxeo.org/trac/pub/query?status=new&status=assigned&status=reope… You may also discuss your issues with this beta on the cps-devel mailing list (http://lists.nuxeo.com/mailman/listinfo/cps-devel) About CPS: Nuxeo CPS (version 3) is an open source, GPL-licensed framework designed for building content management, collaboration and business processing applications. It addresses the needs of web applications developers to easily create rich document types, with workflow-based access control, portal-like interfaces for accessing documents and information, and rich services that match the features of best of breed non-free (proprietary) offering in the domain, including: single-sourcing, versioning, indexing, metadata management, localization and translation, notifications, commenting, theming (user interface customization), users and groups directories, content scheduling and staging, syndication... Higher level components, including mail, calendaring and discussion applications, have been developed on top of the base framework, as well as custom business applications featuring complex document types and workflows. 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

unbuffered response.write through Apache 2.0 reverse proxy?
by Christoph Berendes 21 Feb '06

21 Feb '06

To prevent browser timeout during a long running process, I've got the following code to work nicely,when the browser accesses Zope directly (e.g. http://myzope.net:8080/folder/client001/) context.REQUEST.response.write("progressing...") #do some stuff context.REQUEST.response.write("further...") #do some more stuff context.REQUEST.response.write("done!") However, when browser goes through the Apache reverse proxy, e.g. <VirtualHost *:80> ServerAlias site1.foobar.com .... RewriteRule ^/(.*) \ http://localhost:8080/VirtualHostBase/http/%{SERVER_NAME}:80/%1/site001/Vir… [L,P] I get all three writes (progressing..further...done!) at once, at the end of the processing. I'm running Apache 2.0, Zope. 2.7.6, Plone 2.0.5 on Linux From going through Apache docs and discussions (notably http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/apache/dev/305433) it appears that this is an Apache 2.0 problem. Is there any way to get the same behavior (unbuffered writes) even when I go through the Apache reverse proxy?

3 3

help
by adeline nombre 21 Feb '06

21 Feb '06

hi to all. I wanted to install zope on my debian system but I noticed there is a /usr/lib/zope directory. so I concluded zope has already been installed with my debian system. so what to do now? I'm just beginning. tanx --------------------------------- Nouveau : téléphonez moins cher avec Yahoo! Messenger ! Découvez les tarifs exceptionnels pour appeler la France et l'international.Téléchargez la version beta.

3 2

creating multiple mountpoints in zope.conf
by robert rottermann 21 Feb '06

21 Feb '06

Hi there, I would like to create a site that includes the Data.fs of other sites as mount points. What I would like to do is the following: Site A with using : Data.fs (which is "private") Data.fs.pub (which is "public") Site B: mounts Site A's Data.fs.pub as /shared/site_a How would I do this? Where can I find more documentaion on this? Thanks Robert

1 2