[Grok-dev] Re: collective.namedfile + blob

Dirceu Pereira Tiegs dirceutiegs at gmail.com
Thu Feb 28 17:23:26 EST 2008

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 7:10 PM, Martijn Faassen <faassen at startifact.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Dirceu Pereira Tiegs
>  >  It seems that adding z3c.blobfile to collective.namedfile dependecies
>  >  will cause the install of the newest ZODB 3.*; at least the
>  >  plone.app.blob [1] documentation says that, if you want blob support
>  >  on plone, ZODB 3.8 will be installed. I don't know if it's a good idea
>  >  to do this.
>  Hm, are you sure? In combination with Grok this shouldn't happen, as we pin the
>  ZODB down with versions in buildout. The only thing that z3c.blobfile
>  requires according
>  to its setup.py is ZODB3, so that isn't a conflict.

Yes, I know. I'm worried about collective.namedfile upgranding the
ZODB used by a Zope 2.10 / Plone 3 instance, for example.

>  We just want to make sure that this works in the Zope 2 context that
>  collective.namedfile
>  is mostly used in. I imagine Zope 2 uses the non-egg ZODB, and pulling
>  in an egg would get confusing...


>  >  Should I implement the NamedBlobFile and NamedBlobImage fields and
>  >  widgets on megrok.form? It will take just a few lines of python code
>  >  and some ZCML. Martijn, what do you think?
>  If this is the easiest to make progress, go ahead. I think what we
>  should at least try is make
>  the widget in namedfile more flexible so you can specify the factory
>  by subclassing, instead of
>  having it always create a NamedFile object. The amount of code in
>  megrok.form can then stay very minimal.

+1. I will try to do it.

Dirceu Pereira Tiegs
Weimar Consultoria

Hospedagem Plone, Zope e Python

More information about the Grok-dev mailing list