[Z3-sqlos] zope 2.x, Five and sqlos

[Peter Simmons]

Hi Brian,

Ok sorry it was my dumb question about the /+/ view. I had tried to 
define the + view stuff again in my configure.zcml instead of just using 
the stuff defined for FiveSQLObjectContainer once I removed the stuff 
from my configure.zcml it works.

Once I have some objects in the database should I be able to do 
something like

container/id/edit.html to get it (like in Zope3)?

That doesn't work for me.

Cheers,
Pete

Brian Sutherland wrote:
> On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 03:36:48PM +1200, Peter Simmons (personal) wrote:
>   
>> I have a container that extends FiveSQLOSContainer (forgive me if that 
>> name is slightly wrong) and I did a five:registerClass directive. The 
>> container type shows up on the ZMI add list (I would prefer plone's add 
>> list but this is actually ok for my use case) and I can add one. But 
>> then I can't call the /+/ view on it to add one of the SQLOS based objects.
>>     
>
> Hmm, this sounds like your container is not traversable in the Zope3
> way, or doesn't implement sqlos.interfaces.container.ISQLObjectContainer.
>
> Could you test if the configure.zcml in the FiveSQLOS product is being
> loaded? Perhaps by breaking the XML syntax of the file and trying to
> start Zope with debug mode on?
>
> What do the Zope logs have to say about your attempt to traverse to /+?
>
>   
>> Any pointers, feel free to say I am trying in the wrong area, and/or 
>> ignore my idea and just tell me what you did if you like.
>>     
>
> Containers are probably the quickest way of getting a stepping stone
> from the ZODB to an RDB. But they do add an extra layer of complex code,
> so keep in mind that there are other ways as well.
>
> Depending on your use case, you might consider going one programmatic
> level down and just getting the IISQLObject utility and
> getting/operating on sqlobjects directly.
>
> Or you could create your own container. One FiveSQLOS user replaced his
> application object with a custom container that traverses like
> http://xx.yy/${utility_id}/${row_id}.
>
> Personally, I have tested running Zope3 without a ZODB and having a
> custom publication object. But the code was too fragile/unmaintainable
> to put in sqlos. Apparently http://launchpad.net runs this way with
> multiple ZDOB-less application servers using the same RDB.
>
>   
>> Cheers,
>> Pete
>>
>> Brian Sutherland wrote:
>>     
>>> On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 01:46:25PM +1200, Peter Simmons wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> Hi Brian,
>>>>
>>>> Brian Sutherland wrote:
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>>>> Great! Will you be at EuroPython by the way?
>>>>>
>>>>>   
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>> When/where is EuroPython,
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> In Geneva, about the beginning of July. So quite close.
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> I am based in Auckland, New Zealand so getting 
>>>> to Europe isn't usually straight forward. That said I really want to get 
>>>> to some Europe based sprints/conferences this year, to contribute back 
>>>> but also to meet people as I am planning to spend a year or two in/near 
>>>> Europe staring Feb/March 2007 and would like to still work with 
>>>> Zope/Plone python if possible.
>>>>
>>>> Its justifiable for our business here also and the learning 
>>>> opportunities are huge at these things if the ones I have gone to Oz for 
>>>> are anything to go by.
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> Exactly why I am going;)
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>>>>>> But in my experience for the initial 
>>>>>> situation you are usually best off if the configuration files get 
>>>>>> auto-generated some how from a design. Then they are transparent for the 
>>>>>> simple situation but available for when you get to a complex situation.
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>         
>>>>>>             
>>>>> I can't even begin to imagine how you would auto-generate ZCML;)
>>>>>
>>>>>   
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>> I was thinking of generating python code + ZCML from say a UML diagram, 
>>>> like how you can with Poseidon + ArchGenXML for AT right now. Maybe it 
>>>> will become more clear to me but I don't quite see why we couldn't 
>>>> generate an initial set of stuff and then be able to edit it afterwards. 
>>>> ArchGenXML is very well done in this way but suffers from being built on 
>>>> AT so if you get complex situations you kinda hit a wall and your code 
>>>> gets ugly. Its close but just needs the separation that component 
>>>> architecture provides as the MixIn strategy gets in the way.
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> Ah that sounds much more reasonable, might even be something I would
>>> want to use.
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>
>