[Grok-dev] Re: Admin UI name change suggestion

[Jan-Wijbrand Kolman]

Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> Previously Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>> Hey,
>>>
>>> Before there's much more naming discussion, I should make clear that 
>>> there are two target audiences:
>>>
>>> * site managers. They may want to install or deinstall an 
>>> application, restart Zope, and such things.
>>
>> I suspect the majority of sites will run a single grok app per instance.
>> For those 'install an application' should not be an explicit action, it
>> should happen automatically by taking over the Zope root. In other words
>> for most deployments I do not expect that a separate UI will be needed
>> here.
> 
> Well said. Absolutely agreed.

The more I think about it the less I like these ideas:

* So far I did not have the experience of finding people confused having 
to place an grok.Application inside the application server "root". 
Philipp says he *does* have this experience; can you explain why you 
think these people were confused?

* I think it should be *possible* in a very easy way to configure your 
grok.Application to "take over the zope root", no doubt about that, but 
there's valid use cases to have a zope root that contains multiple 
applications. The argument that grok.Applications can be nested 
basically says that the "root" grok.Application (in whatever way it is 
determined what grok.Application subclass this will be) is a zope root 
again - well, we have that infrastructure already...

* It is not clear to me how you would delete the grok.Application and 
re-add it again during development. It is something you do all the 
time., esp. in the beginning of the development cycle. This also touches 
the issue of intergrating your grok.Application with other Zope-3 based 
software.

* The idea of using port numbers to point to individual applications 
sounds kinda elegant. However, this means that you have to have a 
frontend server to make it all get served on port 80 to the outside 
world. You can argue that for production, you will have a frontend 
server anyway. Well yes, I fully agree, but we have infrastructure 
already to translate URLs to applications, it is the virtual hosting 
support.

In other words, I personally think the status quo gives us almost the 
full set of flexibility we want already. And by adding the *option* to 
have a grok.Applcation take over the "root" we will complete it.

So far, I'm -1.

regards,
jw