[Grok-dev] Re: newbie question: megrok.five status
Philipp von Weitershausen
philipp at weitershausen.de
Tue Nov 13 06:24:04 EST 2007
Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2007 8:24 PM, Martin Aspeli <optilude at gmx.net> wrote:
>> Because Zope 2 doesn't look exactly like Zope 3? :)
> Well, no, but there are many similarities, and because Grok provides a
> level of abstraction above it would be possible to get much closer to
> the elusive goal of code that run on both.
But what good would that do? Code that's written with Grok is always new
code. So you might just as well do that new development using the
regular Grok on Zope 3.
>> The most common use case here is "Grok-with-Plone" or maybe
>> "Grok-with-CMF". I don't see many compelling reasons to use
>> "Grok-with-plain-Zope2", since "Grok-with-Zope3" already fulfils pretty
>> much all of what you could get there anyway.
> This is definitely true. We need Zope2 today pretty much because we
> need Plone. But with Grok-on-Zope2 be very different from
Well, to be honest, I have no idea what Grok-on-Zope2 should look like.
Functionality-wise, it can't be much different from our regular Grok. So
Why have it at all then?
> Then again, I'm not sure Grok as a "compatibility layer" is the way
> forward. But I think it may be.
I think Five is the compatibility layer.
I think we should from now on be clear in our terminology. For me,
"Grok" is *the* web application framework that's distributed in the
'grok' package. It runs on Zope 3. There's only one Grok. Let's keep it
Now, I'm all for reusing Grok's underlying mechanisms and philosophies
elsewhere (e.g. in Plone), but whatever it is, it should NOT be called
Grok. We'll just end up confusing ourselves, just like we did with Zope
2 vs. Zope 3. I bet we would also run into the same marketing problem
(e.g. if the Plone thing sucked but Grok actually ruled, people would
condemn Grok because of their experience with the Plone Grok-lookalike.)
More information about the Grok-dev