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

Dirceu Pereira Tiegs dirceutiegs at gmail.com
Sun Mar 9 08:10:05 EDT 2008


On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 7:23 PM, Dirceu Pereira Tiegs
<dirceutiegs at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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

> >  >  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.

I made a branch of megrok.form to add support to blobfile / blobimage,
but without touching collective.namedfile:


... but it became a mess. :-(

I've also created a branch of collective.namedfile (but doesn't
commited yet) with the same additions, but I don't like the idea of
adding ZODB 3.8 as a dependency of it. There is any way to add a
"conditional dependency" in setup.py? It would be great if we can
install collective.namedfile without z3c.blobfile / ZODB 3.8 dependecy
in Plone and install *with* these dependecies on Grok / Z3.

If not, I think the better way is to commit the collective.namedfile
branch to SVN and upload it to PYPI with another name (like
collective.namedblobfile) or something like that. What do you think?

Dirceu Pereira Tiegs
Weimar Consultoria

Hospedagem Plone, Zope e Python

More information about the Grok-dev mailing list