[Grok-dev] Grok 1.0 final?
hannosch at hannosch.eu
Tue Apr 14 13:41:54 EDT 2009
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hanno Schlichting wrote:
>> I'm new to Grok ;)
>> Is there any page or tracker that lists what is missing for a 1.0 final
> See here too:
>> We are talking about integrating Grok (or grok approaches) into Plone 4
>> and I am wondering how stable Grok is at this point.
> Grok's APIs are pretty stable, I'd say.
Thanks, that was my impression.
> The other grokcore.* packages are mature as well in the sense that
> they're almost a year old now as independent packages and are themselves
> based on code we've been evolving forward since the beginning of Grok.
> The main area we can improve things is making them depend on a lot less
> Zope Toolkit code. This is mostly a Zope Toolkit issue. Grok 1.0 isn't
> going to wait for all that to come through; that's a Grok 1.1 or Grok
> 2.0 topic.
> I'll also note that Sylvain has been doing a lot of work making Silva
> use Grok - you're not the first Zope 2 user of Grok.
Right, except Plone 4 with Zope 2.12 and repoze.zope2 won't have that
much to do with the old Zope 2 anymore ;)
> Eventually we'll move on to Grok 2.0 development. That should have a
> radically smaller dependency list. We might also swap in chameleon as
> the default template language, and hurry.resource for resource handling.
> I hope zope.pipeline will also be ready by then. Perhaps adopt z3c.form
> for form handling. But since Grok takes the "megaframework" approach
> none of these should break the world.
Ok. so Grok 2.0 is what we are going to be interested in. We already
decided to switch to Chameleon as the default and only template story,
will use z3c.form instead of formlib and I'll want to bring the changes
from zope.pipeline into the repoze.zope2 story. The Zope Toolkit
dependency reduction is obviously on our list as well.
More information about the Grok-dev