[Gsoc] proposal suggestions
uli at gnufix.de
Tue Apr 1 19:03:26 EDT 2008
thanks for your announce here.
Jesper Petersen wrote:
> Hi, I submitted a proposal about a debugger/introspector in the last
The deadline was extended by one week :-)
> Just saw that it would probably not get chosen because of an existing
> better proposal. How would I go about working with those that proposed
> a similar idea (as was suggested in a comment)?
Welcome, Number Three ;-) The problem is in fact, that every single
proposal focuses on a different environment: plain Zope2/Plone (Martin
Lundwall), Grok (my propsal) and Zope 3 (your proposal) and that all
should share a certain amount of code.
I could imagine to drop that 'base introspector' and implement the Grok
specific parts based on the existing docgrok, which works for Grok. That
would most probably be enough work for a single person and the docgrok
could be rewritten once, when the other libs are finished.
In this case my proposal would be independent from Martin's and yours.
Less collaboration complications.
You might want, however, to coordinate with Martin Lundwall, from which
I got a nice reply meanwhile. According to his plannings, you should be
able to integrate parts of his work into your's. The problem would be,
that it is not always easy to say, what 'Zope 2' and 'Zope 3' means.
Plone for example is going straight into Zope 3 direction using more and
more components from the rich set of available packages. So chances are
high, that Martins library will stem a lot of the ugly work to do.
> Otherwise, I'm trying to come up with a new proposal but time is
> running out and I have a very busy schedule at the moment. So it's
> kind of difficult to think of something new cool stuff at this
> stressfull moment :)
> I skimmed through the ideas list and this looked interesting:
> "Grok user and group management. Grok currently supports Zope 3's
> authentication infrastructure, but there's quite a bit to glue up
> before you can have users and groups. Look into simplifying the out of
> the box experience, while retaining flexibility."
> Are we talking about a sort of 'sanctioned' product for user
> management here (credentialsplugin, authplugin, fancy admin gui).. or
> simply tools to make rolling your own solution a piece of cake (which
> i believe is what is meant). I looked a bit at a very simple login
> solution here.. http://svn.zope.org/grokapps/LoginDemo/ and I must say
> it does look a bit too Zope3:ey ;)
> Sorry for not having browsed through the grok code that much, but what
> glueing is needed for users and groups? I noticed e.g
> grok.admin.view.Users being unusable at the moment (import errors), is
> it only some glue missing or maybe we don't even have anything to glue
> together ;)
You discovered the old useradmin stuff in the Grok admin-UI? Boy! Good
eyes! This is a dead chicken from times when you could manage principals
with the admin-UI. It broke some already running instances, so I removed
it, while a broken view remained. You need some security packages in the
namespace and a setup script to make it running.
I think in fact the 'tools to make rolling your own solution a piece of
cake' were meant, although I think this is not as simple as writing a
pretty GUI tool for user management. I'd personally appreciate some Grok
support in that field very much! The admin-UI will have it's own
usermanagement after GSOC, but this has to be based on the pure Zope 3
techniques (PAU and plugins), which are incredible powerfull and
flexible, but complex to use for a beginner. Making this even slightly
easier for Grok developers you would become my personal hero :-)
In case you want to do this, you might want to discuss your plans on the
The user-management suggestion sounds like a Martijn-idea. Maybe he
wants to speak up himself.
Hmm, overall we might cope best, if I stick on the docgrok to do
introspecting, while Martin could build the base for (better) future
introspectors and Jesper might concentrate on the improved PAU interface
for Grok. What do you think?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Url : http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/gsoc/attachments/20080402/eb47d8ca/attachment.bin
More information about the Gsoc