[Grok-dev] Re: RFC: Making the automatic registration of templates more explicit

[Martijn Faassen]

Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2007, at 16:10 , ct at gocept.com wrote:
>> Sorry for catching up so late. I'm trying to remember everything that
>> popped up in my mind while reading this thread.
>>
>> 1. I like grok.template('asdf') on a module level in opposition to
>> "consume all templates".
> 
> Ok. The only beef I have with it is that the evolution path to a 
> template + view isn't very gradual. Say you only have a template, 
> index.pt. So you do:
> 
>   grok.template('index')
> 
> Now you realize you need to compute some stuff in that template, so you 
> delete that line again and write:
> 
>   class Index(grok.View):
> 
>       def update(self):
>           self.pi = 3
> 
> Having to delete stuff to evolve sucks. I'd rather have empty classes, 
> even if they look dead-chicken-y:
> 
>   class Index(grok.View):
>       pass # rendered by a template
> 

We could have a grok.PageTemplateFile that acts entirely like 
grok.PageTemplate. As far as I recall that will be auto-associated if no 
view exists, but otherwise it'll be hooked up to the view. This is a 
good argument for symmetry with grok.PageTemplate.

[snip]
>> we need to come up with a module-level
>> grok.view(class=, template=, ...) registration?
> 
> Shrug. Please, no. We're bringing back ZCML all over again, only in a 
> different wrapper. Less is more. One class and one template per view is 
> absolutely ok; if there's a need for consolidating commonly used stuff, 
> there's always subclassing. Let people use this "natural" way of 
> consolidating things. They don't need to learn extra stuff.

Shrug or please no? :)

I agree with Philipp in that we should be very careful about introducing 
new directives here. I agree that subclassing is a reuse mechanism that 
we should explore first.

Regards,

Martijn