Re: Layer and skin registrations; possible simplification
faassen at startifact.com
Mon Jul 28 08:52:28 EDT 2008
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> Jan-Wijbrand Kolman wrote:
>> Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
>>> Why is there IGrokLayer? Let's deprecate that as well. As far as I
>>> can tell, it bears no use whatsoever. If people are worried about
>>> having to import a base interface, then let's expose IBrowserRequest
>>> from grok. Because that's what you should use to base layers and
>>> skins on anyways.
>> I agree. I just wanted to focus on one specific issue for now :) As
>> far as I can see now, the IGrokLayer is just way of communicating intent.
> Right. I wonder why it's called IGrokLayer then, not Layer or ILayer...
> Anyway, I think it's a sacrificial chicken that I don't think we need in
> But you're right, better focus on that other thing for now.
Anyway, yeah, IGrokLayer is a confusing pitfall. If you actually use it,
you find out things don't work very well (error messages aren't around,
as Philipp helped myself and Peter debug back at the Grokkerdam sprint),
and you end up putting in default browser layer after all. Besides, Grok
shouldn't be placing the word 'Grok' in its things, we have a namespace
already after all.
I therefore think we should take this opportunity to do something about
this. What exactly, I don't know. I do agree JW can proceed with the
other change without worrying about this stuff yet, though.
More information about the Grok-dev