[Grok-dev] Re: Admin UI name change suggestion

Martijn Faassen faassen at startifact.com
Fri Oct 5 05:41:58 EDT 2007

Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> Okay, point taken. That doesn't explain why so many beginners were 
>> confused with Grok, so that seems to be a separate issue.
> People are just confused by the fact that you have to *instantiate* your 
> application. The asked me: Why doesn't that grok.Application thing 
> simply represent /?

Peculiar. You'd think would be familiar with the concept of installing 
an application into a OS, for instance. I didn't encounter such 
confusion myself as far as I know when I taught my grok tutorial.

>> we have more compatibility with existing applications, and it's far 
>> easier to switch back to a 'multiple applications in one root' model.
> Applications could be nested. I don't see how the "application is the 
> root" model prevents us from still installing multiple applications. For 
> instance, you could have a "mother application" if you explicitly wanted 
> to allow that use case.

All this assumes large changes to the UI. We currently have a UI that is 
quite capable of dealing with installing applications into the root. I 
don't see why the concept of nested applications is necessary (just for 
this use case, which is solvable without it) and it would require a UI 

We should turn this discussion around. You want to replace the root. 
This has consequences. Why replace the root? It's not necessary as 
benefits can be accomplished otherwise, has drawbacks (a rethink of the 
application installation UI, development patterns (how to remove and 
reinstall?), backwards comatibility is broken with Zope 3) and therefore 
seems to require more work.



More information about the Grok-dev mailing list