[Grok-dev] Re: static versus Zope 3's directory resources

[Philipp von Weitershausen]

Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
>> Jan-Wijbrand Kolman wrote:
>>> Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
>>>>> (personally I think it could very well be in Grok itself.)
>>>> Both :).
>>> :)
>>>
>>>> I think we want to split up Grok for it to be more modular. This is a 
>>>> perfect example of a single, self-contained piece of functionality 
>>>> that makes sense to be shipped with *and* without Grok.
>>>>
>>>> I would personally like to tackle to split-up of Grok pretty soon. 
>>>> I've done an experiment a while back already and it worked well. The 
>>>> lessons learned have been incorporated into the 0.11 release already. 
>>>> My plans are to start with splitting off the ZCML directive 
>>>> implementation and the registration of core components (adapters, 
>>>> utilities, subscribers) before the year is over...
>>> So, as a practical result of the split, you could imagine to have a 
>>> "grok.resources" package at some point?
>> Right. We can't make 'grok' a namespace package, though, because it 
>> contains code in __init__. We'll have to use something else. Martijn 
>> wants to use grokcore.
> 
> Is this really tied to grok? It sounds like it could just as well be a
> z3c.* thing.

It's grok specific in the sense that it exposes already existing 
functionality (in zope.* packages) in a grokkish kind of way. Sure, it 
could all be a z3c.* thing, even grok could've been z3c.grok, but I 
don't think we want to go there.