[Grok-dev] Re: BrowserView versus BrowserPage

Martijn Faassen 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 mailing list