[Grok-dev] towards a Grok release: current state of affairs
janwijbrand at gmail.com
Thu Jan 6 11:48:51 EST 2011
On 1/6/11 16:18 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> I think another change is that the Zope static resource publisher, for
> better or worse, publishes even .html files as zope page templates, i.e.
> it tries to interpret TAL in it. If you've been relying on this, it
> won't work with Fanstatic.
Good point. Needs to be documented.
> I'm in favor of 2), to preserve the compatibility. I think in the case
> that someone really wants to extract a reusable library, they can go
> all-Fanstatic themselves. It's also Grok's job to automate registration
> tasks, and I think this includes Fanstatic registration tasks. I think
> it's okay for grokcore.view to rely on Fanstatic. Can we drop the
> dependency on zope.browserresource when we do that?
I really was on the fence for this one, so I'm glad you took a decision :)
Zope.browserresource can then indeed be dropped as a direct dep. for
> I think there's some interesting interaction if you have a macro in
> package A, and then a template in package B that uses it.
> If you use a static resource in the macro, it will fail if you're in
> package B as it'll look in the 'static' of package B, as opposed to the
> static of package A, unless you explicitly spell out the package name in
> the 'static' inclusions in the macro (I forget the exact spelling...)
Hmmm, right. Needs some documentation too I guess.
> I hope the new zope.app.appsetup 3.15.0 is in there that fixes the error
> logging issue. :)
I'll double check, I but I bet it is :) (which reminds me to somewhere
leave a note how to enable logging in existing databases again).
More information about the Grok-dev