[Grok-dev] Re: BrowserView versus BrowserPage
faassen at startifact.com
Wed Jun 27 09:05:11 EDT 2007
Jan-Wijbrand Kolman wrote:
> I guess this topic has been discussed before, but I suddenly wonder:
> Why does grok "only" provide for a "BrowserPage" type of view (via
> grok.View) and not also a BrowserView type of view? I can imagine
> having had both a grok.View() implementing IBrowserView and a
> grok.Page() implementing IBrowserPage.
You say 'grok.View()' and 'grok.Page()' with the '()' there, but these
would be base classes, right?
Yes, Philipp brought this up in the past. I see the point. Making the
change would require quite a lot of changes in documentation and
people's code, however. Additionally, we use grok.View for things that
aren't really pages such as page fragments and file downloads - the word
'Page' may sit a bit less well.
I'm not against trying to move forward with this, but we'd need a pretty
good plan on how to accomplish this first. We need an analysis of what
grok.View is going to be for exactly. I'm a bit worried we'll give up
such a general name as 'View' for use cases that occur infrequently.
Suggestions would be very welcome.
More information about the Grok-dev