[Grok-dev] Re: we need a MethodGrokker

Martijn Faassen faassen at startifact.com
Thu May 29 12:11:38 EDT 2008

Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>>> Is there anything else we want to get done before a 0.13 release?
>>> So, is there?
>> One thing I'd like to study is whether we really need 
>> foo.directive.bind().get() everywhere, and whether this cannot be 
>> encapsulated into 'get()' on the directive after all.
>> Then of course it'd be interesting to figure out which cases of 
>> foo.directive.get() are still left in the actual grokkers, to see 
>> whether we can get rid of them too. If we can get rid of all of them, 
>> no more need for an easier foo.directive.get(). :)
> There's still some use in the grokkers (4 places) but also some within 
> directives themselves (3 places), the template registry (2 places) and 
> the util.py module (1 place).
> While a directive.get() method would be tempting, the question is 
> whether it's even necessary with so few uses of directive.bind().get()...


I wonder whether we can get rid of these template registry and util 
module into the grokkers. I guess it needs study on a case-by-case 
basis, but I think our fundamental approach should be to let the 
grokkers do as much as possible.

I'll spend a bit of time to try to tackle a few.



More information about the Grok-dev mailing list