[Grok-dev] Re: final sprint report - please review my branch!

[Philipp von Weitershausen]

Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> [snip]
>> It is as long as you're fine with actually creating new classes. If 
>> you'd want to make existing classes implicit contexts, you're out of 
>> luck.
> 
> I'm not sure whether this use case is very common, but it might be one. 
> It'd be interesting to come up with some real world scenarios where this 
> requirement comes up.

Well, I imagine that the Plone folks have their own ideas, but I 
personally wouldn't want to invent yet another base class for Plone 
content and just work off the existing Archetypes or CMF ones. That way 
the new grok-based stuff works with *existing* classes, which is pretty 
important IMHO.

>> I like the IGrokContext idea. It's just as simple as subclassing 
>> 'Context' (which we can still leave around). Sounds like a win-win 
>> solution.
> 
> True, I hadn't thought of the use case you mentioned, but using an 
> interface would fix this.
> 
> Anyway, I'm still don't think we should be in a rush to get this fixed, 
> but grokking based on interface should be a feature for the longer term 
> todo list in Martian, and it shouldn't be too hard to implement as far 
> as I can determine.

It's really just a two-line change, one in the Context base class (to 
say that it implements IGrokContext) and one in the grokker so that it 
doesn't do isinstance() but IGrokContext.implementedBy().