[Grok-dev] Re: static versus Zope 3's directory resources

Tres Seaver tseaver at palladion.com
Mon Nov 26 11:49:43 EST 2007

Hash: SHA1

Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> Previously Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
>>> Jan-Wijbrand Kolman wrote:
>>>> Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
>>>>>> (personally I think it could very well be in Grok itself.)
>>>>> Both :).
>>>> :)
>>>>> I think we want to split up Grok for it to be more modular. This is a 
>>>>> perfect example of a single, self-contained piece of functionality 
>>>>> that makes sense to be shipped with *and* without Grok.
>>>>> I would personally like to tackle to split-up of Grok pretty soon. 
>>>>> I've done an experiment a while back already and it worked well. The 
>>>>> lessons learned have been incorporated into the 0.11 release already. 
>>>>> My plans are to start with splitting off the ZCML directive 
>>>>> implementation and the registration of core components (adapters, 
>>>>> utilities, subscribers) before the year is over...
>>>> So, as a practical result of the split, you could imagine to have a 
>>>> "grok.resources" package at some point?
>>> Right. We can't make 'grok' a namespace package, though, because it 
>>> contains code in __init__. We'll have to use something else. Martijn 
>>> wants to use grokcore.
>> Is this really tied to grok? It sounds like it could just as well be a
>> z3c.* thing.
> It's grok specific in the sense that it exposes already existing 
> functionality (in zope.* packages) in a grokkish kind of way. Sure, it 
> could all be a z3c.* thing, even grok could've been z3c.grok, but I 
> don't think we want to go there.

Isn't 'martian' already a 'grokcore'-like namespace package?

- --
Tres Seaver          +1 540-429-0999          tseaver at palladion.com
Palladion Software   "Excellence by Design"    http://palladion.com
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


More information about the Grok-dev mailing list