[Grok-dev] Re: [grok-br] Grok 1.0 and beyond
wichert at wiggy.net
Fri Jan 4 20:36:09 EST 2008
Previously Martijn Faassen wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2008 2:22 AM, Wichert Akkerman <wichert at wiggy.net> wrote:
> > Previously Martijn Faassen wrote:
> > > >- *Good* form generation: zope.formlib's is too primitive comparing to
> > > >Django admin interface or Archetypes, for example;
> > >
> > > Details? How are the Django admin interface or Archetypes better?
> > >
> > > Form generation always has limitations, but where are the limitations
> > > that make you think zope.formlib is not good?
> > As mentioned before a big issue is the lack of fields and decent
> > widgets. People think in terms of email addresses, postal codes, URLs,
> > etc. I'm not aware of a formlib field or widget for any of those.
> Good point. I'm sure some of those are floating around in some z3c
> package somewhere. It's also not too hard to create some more of them.
> It'd be a good task to create them/aggregate them and make them
> installable as a megrok.* package. Should be easy enough to get
> started on for a volunteer, and I'd be happy to help people to work
> out the basics. I can also extract a tinymce-based widget from a
> codebase I'm working on (JW Kolman actually wrote it).
There is some progress in various places luckily, but there is no
central index of available fields and widgets.
For example Martin has kupu working for formlib , see
has some very useful file and image fields and widgets that should work
fine in grok.
Wichert Akkerman <wichert at wiggy.net> It is simple to make things.
http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple.
More information about the Grok-dev