[Grok-dev] could we re-name grok.IRESTRequest to grok.IRESTLayer?
Brandon Craig Rhodes
brandon at rhodesmill.org
Wed Dec 17 10:16:17 EST 2008
I understand that whoever wrote the following definition in
`grok.interfaces` was doing something that looks quite reasonable; the
superclass is a Request-thing, so shouldn't the class also indicate that
in its name::
"""REST-specific Request functionality.
Base Interfaces for defining REST-layers.
But the way that an `IRESTRequest` is actually used, always, and in
every context that I can find it used, is as a base class for a REST
layer. Therefore, I think that it should be renamed to `IRESTLayer`,
and that `IRESTRequest` should be left around as a synonym to avoid
breaking old code that has already used that name - but that the name
should be put through deprecation, either now, or some time after 1.0.
This would mean that definitions like the following one, from the file
would become the much more sensible::
Brandon Craig Rhodes brandon at rhodesmill.org http://rhodesmill.org/brandon
More information about the Grok-dev