[Grok-dev] Re: Grok nomenclature
faassen at startifact.com
Fri May 2 12:03:42 EDT 2008
Brandon Craig Rhodes wrote:
> Anyway, the main thing I wanted to bring into this discussion is a
> reminder of Philipp's idea a few weeks ago that we signal grokability
> with an interface.
Was it Philipp's idea? :) (Leonardo and myself brought it up I think)
I think I earlier discussed implementing this directive as actually
doing the adding of the interface. Just having the interface would
indeed be enough. The base classes, in the hybrid/evolution scenario
*wouldn't* implement that interface; you'll have to supply it itself for
> +1 to Martijn's suggestion that only packages in weird situations
> should ever need to use explicit markup about what gets grok;
> we should avoid this practice ever becoming common
> +1 to Philipp's suggestion that we try shifting grokcore.component
> to using an interface rather than inheritance for grokability
> +1 to the idea of throwing out the proposal for a *directive* that
> signals grokking, and instead tell people in that edge/hybrid
> situation that they should use Philipp's interface instead to
> tell Grok what to pay attention to.
+1 to this.
More information about the Grok-dev