[Grok-dev] Re: on the name "Grok"

Martijn Faassen faassen at startifact.com
Mon Apr 28 12:35:19 EDT 2008

HI there,

Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> If you're reusing Grok's technology or a subset of its packages (and we 
> encourage you to do so!), you should not call this thing Grok. Call it 
> something else, give it an actually purposeful name (e.g. plone.easyapi 
> or whatever).

I think that's a terrible name, and a good example of why I strongly 
disagree with this. If you are providing a workalike API in Zope 2 
context, by all means I think people should call this 'five.grok'. The 
existing examples are intended to work.

Do you really prefer people write this?

class MyAdapter(plone.easyapi.Adapter):

This sounds terrible to me. Suddenly people have to mentally translate 
all the examples that already exist for Grok. Do you really think people 
won't be writing: 'import plone.easyapi as grok' anyway? That's 
certainly what I'd be very much tempted to write if I wrote any examples 
for Zope 2!

Why can't Zope 2 have a package 'five.grok' that aims to provide the 
same API as Grok does? If we are careful to refer to this as 'five.grok' 
or 'Grok on Zope 2' I think we can tolerate the minimum confusion this 
should cause. Should we be that much afraid of Zope 2?

What if we ever get so far that "import grok" works on Zope 2 without 
modifications? Do we tell people that 'plone.easyapi' is now Grok after all?

I think you make a good point in that we should be clear that "Grok" is 
what we have created and develop here. If you are going to make a Grok 
for Zope 2, that shouldn't be referred to as "Grok" unless the context 
is unambiguous, but as "Five Grok" or something like that.



More information about the Grok-dev mailing list