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

Martijn Faassen faassen at startifact.com
Fri Oct 5 05:50:31 EDT 2007

Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
>> * It is not clear to me how you would delete the grok.Application and 
>> re-add it again during development. It is something you do all the 
>> time., esp. in the beginning of the development cycle. This also 
>> touches the issue of intergrating your grok.Application with other 
>> Zope-3 based software.
> We could simply add a view for grok.Applications, e.g. /recreate, that 
> would delete the object and create a new one. *That* I think is easily 
> solved.

You'd get rid of the UI in favor of a /recreate view? We have a UI. It 
can show broken objects. It can install multiple applications. You can 
click to the introspector. You want to throw it out completely in favor 
of ad-hoc approaches. Why?

 > The multiple apps use case is for us experts.

That doesn't make any sense at all to me. You're saying people can't 
install multiple applications into a UI? You need to be an expert to do 
this? You're proposing to make something that's *easy* now hard and only 
for exports for which reasons exactly?

Grok is based on Zope. Zope has been able to do this for a decade or so. 
To me, you're proposing to go backwards because other frameworks can't 
do this.

I'm fine with supporting this scenario for deployment. I'm fine even 
with making it *possible* for beginners to just install the application 
directly. But I don't want to dump our UI, and I don't want to make 
installing multiple applications harder. I like there being a web-based 
UI for doing things; I got the impression people early on actually were 
won over to Zope because the ZMI was cool.



More information about the Grok-dev mailing list