[Grok-dev] Re: Grok nomenclature

Martijn Faassen 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 mailing list