[Grok-dev] Re: grok.Permission and grok.Role

[Jan-Wijbrand Kolman]

Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> On 24 Aug 2007, at 15:49 , Brandon Craig Rhodes wrote:
>> Philipp von Weitershausen <philipp at weitershausen.de> writes:
>>
>>> You might argue that we now no longer use the grok.name()
>>> etc. directives.  I don't consider this a disadvantage. After all,
>>> they're supposed to be *extra hints* for the grokker to do creation
>>> and registration. If the object already inherently contains this
>>> information, I think it's much more valuable to have it with the
>>> object in the manner that's meaningful and described by the object's
>>> API (IPermission and IRole in this case).
>>
>> Does this mean that the developer now has to memorize which classes he
>> names through grok.name() and which ones he names through id = ""?
>> Someone not familiar with the internals of Zope 3 will see no reason
>> why some classes get named one way and some the other, and will always
>> be having to look up which is which.  This would make Grok slightly
>> less convenient.
>>
>> Just a thought.
> 
> A very good one.
> 
> We should still allow the directives, for reasons of symmetry.
snip

Do you mean we should support both the IPermission/IRole API and Grok's 
way of naming things?

Personally I would be in favor to trying to keep as close as possible to 
the original API, since it makes it easier to apply the knowledge in 
other resources of information - outside the Grok context - about roles 
and permissions.

kind regards,
jw