[Grok-dev] Re: grok and the ORM of your choice

[Martijn Faassen]

Brandon Craig Rhodes wrote:
> Martijn Faassen <faassen at startifact.com> writes:
> 
>> Hey Brandon,
>> Some belated feedback to this.
> 
> Thank you!  I had worried that it simply did not merit comment. :-)

No, I was thrilled to see your work in this area. I think it's essential 
to have a good relational database story for Grok (even though I'm a big 
fan of the ZODB).

[snip]
>> I really tried to make z3c.zalchemy work as I know Christian Theune
>> worked on this (ZODB integration expert and one of the original Grok
>> developers), but unfortunately I couldn't get it figured out for my
>> use case.
> 
> Actually, "zalchemy" seemed almost easy - but maybe that was only
> after looking at z3c.sqlalchemy! :-)

I imagine we are using these for different purposes. I was trying to 
expose sqlalchemy tables to Grok and just have them work. I couldn't 
convince zalchemy to do this, but perhaps I missed something trivial. 
You are using the object relational mapper, and this is closer to the 
main use case for zalchemy.

[snip]
> I will describe how I used "zalchemy" in my tutorial.

Great!

>>> the name "index".  That name seems to be special inside of Zope 3;
>>> while one can see an object by adding "index" to the URL explicitly
>>> like ".../person/900010011/index", it also appears to be the view
>>> that is used if no view name is added to the end of the URL at all
>>> like "../person/900010011".
>> Yes, this is in fact deliberate and intended. We may add a
>> grok.default_view() directive to make this more clear.
> 
> I actually like the "index" convention, because it "Works Just Like
> Apache And Everything Else".  Introducing a default_view() call would
> mean I have to go look up which view is default, rather than "just
> knowing" by looking at the names.

That's a good point. You just seemed to be a bit unsure about it in your 
text ("seems special"), which made me think perhaps this feature is a 
bit confusing.

Regards,

Martijn