[Grok-dev] five.grok and static resource directory (grokcore.view)

Sylvain Viollon sylvain at infrae.com
Tue Aug 26 04:52:41 EDT 2008


On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:57:44 +0200
Philipp von Weitershausen <philipp at weitershausen.de> wrote:

> >>    I prefer the first one, because it's cleaner I think, but that's
> >> means if people use grokcore.view without grok or five.grok, they
> >> are not going to have a static resource directory registered. 
> >
> > It's an important usecase for us that grokcore.view works without
> > Grok or five.grok.  
> Yes. I would also like to stress again that while I acknowledge 
> five.grok being a driving factor behind grokcore.view, I don't think
> we should have Zope 2's sometimes butchered way of looking at things 
> dictate the way we split up Grok.

  Maybe there is a way to override that grokker and don't do changes
in grokcore.view. But if it's exists, well, I don't known it yet.

> >   This might mean documentation updates for grokcore.view, and
> > those people who are already *using* grokcore.view in straight Zope
> > 3 packages might have a problem. I hope we don't have too many of
> > these people yet.  
> Yes, we'd need documentation *and* test updates for grokcore.view. I 
> haven't seen either on Sylvain's branch yet.

  We need to have some code to be able to test it, and we need to
define a way of doing things to be able to document it.

  I did that first as an experiment to see if it was possible to get
that working in Zope 2, and that's the case but I needed to do some
changes. Now we should define what's the best way of handling these
changes before to add specific documentation and test on that way.

> > So, you better write clear upgrade notes for grokcore.view if
> > you're going to take out the static support too.  
> My Solomon's Judgement would be to agree to the moving back static to 
> Grok, but to demand that in its place, grokcore.view was given a
> general way of registering resource directories. Grok's static thing
> would then just be a special case of that.

  I think we could create a component called ResourceDirectory, which
is used like that:

  class Static(grokcore.view.ResourceDirectory):

  And in that case, it will grok the static resource directory of the
current package, like it's done for the moment. We could extend that
grokker/grokker-mixin in Grok it self to implement the static resource
directory on every package by default.

  People which make an upgrade of grokcore.view should add this code to
their if they already use it.

  Best regards,


Sylvain Viollon -- Infrae
t +31 10 243 7051 -- http://infrae.com
Hoevestraat 10 3033GC Rotterdam -- The Netherlands
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/grok-dev/attachments/20080826/2d325a91/attachment.bin 

More information about the Grok-dev mailing list