[Grok-dev] Re: branches review before 0.11 release

[Martijn Faassen]

Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On 11/5/07, Martijn Faassen <faassen at startifact.com> wrote:
[snip]
> I think it's ready for merging. I don't think the story gets better
> than this, it's all quite simple, really. I want feedback on a couple
> of issues:
> 
> 1. Which tests should we keep: The ftests Brandon did, or the
> unittests I did without realizing Brandon alsread had made some tests.
> Mine test a bit more, but that can be merged.

I'll leave this up to you and Lennart to figure out. :)

> 2. I refactored the ZPT support. Before the PageTemplate and
> PageTemplateClass subclassed zope.pagetemplate.PageTemplate directly.
> I have moved them to the simplified story, meaning that the ZPTs are
> now attributes on the grok classes. This saved some lines of code, but
> created more classes, as the templates need to subclass from
> TrustedApp as well. Opinions on that refactor? The tests work,
> however, and we can easily undo it, the APIs haven't changed.

It sounds good to me that ZPTs are treated like everything else.

> 3. As a port of the refactoring, I merged PageTemplate and
> PageTemplateFile, as the simplified story suggests. There however
> still a PageTemplateFile for BBB purposes. Should we keep it so, or
> deprecate it?

I do't understand this question. What do you mean by 'a port of the 
refactoring'?

> Oh, and I also realized during this work that we can add simple
> support for automatic refreshing to the GrokTemplate class, so that
> you in your render method can just do self.refresh() first, and it
> will check for debug-state and file timestamp and reload the template,
> if desired. That would be pretty cool, should we implement that?

Sure, though let's leave that until after 0.11? I assume that at least 
PageTemplates do right now still support automatic refresh still as they 
do right in Zope 3 and Grok? That's the only absolute requirement.

[snip]
>> * neanderthal-startupspeed - Lennart, Joachim Schmitz, Ahmed
> 
> Well, the stuff we did that was not impressive, and personally I don't
> think it's worth the work. It's not going to get us down to the couple
> of seconds that we need to make refreshing a non-issue.

True. Let's keep it around for a bit for reference. We can remove it in 
a few months if nobody is interested then.

Regards,

Martijn