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

[Martijn Faassen]

Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
>> If you turn the Zope 3 root into a grok application, there are some 
>> questions, like:
>>
>> How do you remove the application again and reinstall it? This is what 
>> I do quite a frequently during development.
> 
> As I've suggested in another reply, this could easily be handled by a view.
> 
>> Where is the user interface to go to the introspector?
> 
> Append /introspector or something? I don't think it's too hard to come 
> up with an easy-to-remember rule how to reach it.

So you're proposing we *throw out* the UI entirely in favor of various 
URL appendages we need to remember?

[snip]
>> How this is actually going to make everyone's life better?
> 
> Less work to get started. Less concepts to grasp (object publishing, 
> sites as in ISIte, etc.).

It depends on what you mean by "getting started", right? It's less work 
to get a single application installed.

It's more work to figure out everything else. Lack of a UI will make 
life harder to get started. You don't know how to get to the 
introspector (you need to read this somewhere). You don't know how to 
recreate the application (you need to read this somewhere). You can't 
detect that your application is broken (again, you need to read this 
somewhere).

I don't understand how there are less concepts to grasp. People working 
with Grok will need to understand object publishing; do you think this 
will somehow avoid this? I also have the strong suspicion that 
eventually people will encounter the ISite concept as well.

>> So far I've heard "people are confused", but it's not clear to me that 
>> this change would make people less confused or if so, it would 
>> actually improve their lives?
> 
> Well, everybody who said they were confused said that they would've not 
> expected this step. That this application object "would just be there". 
> That seems pretty clear to me about whether it would improve their lives.

One wouldn't think they would be confused for long as soon as they go to 
localhost:8080, right?

Anyway, again, having a way to get an application installed by default 
would be useful in various circumstances. It just doesn't seem to be the 
driving use case to:

* throw out the admin UI (we should make it optional, of course)

* make installing multiple applications an "expert" use case only.

* generally do a lot of work to figure out all kinds of use cases that 
we already cover today.

Regards,

Martijn