[Grok-dev] Re: on the name "Grok"

[Martijn Faassen]

Brandon Craig Rhodes wrote:
> Martijn Faassen <faassen at startifact.com> writes:
> 
>> Hi there,
>>
>> [bunch of stuff about Grok compatibility layers]
> 
> Oh, wow - the other .grok modules let you write *exactly* the same
> code as in normal Grok, and it will work in the other framework like
> it does atop Zope 3 in Grok?  I hadn't understood that!  I'd thought
> that they were ways of "grokking" whatever kind of presentation or
> view classes the other web framework had natively.

Yes, this is the aim of five.grok (except for the import, and of course 
five.grok is hardly done yet). I think this is the only aim of 
'five.grok', too. It shouldn't contain other things to support Zope 2, 
just supports the writing of Grok code in Zope 2.

It's not at all true for 'plone.grok', which is why I'm very much 
against that name. plone.grok is the use of Grok technology in the 
context of particular Plone concepts, and shouldn't be called Grok.

> If you're reproducing the same API, then I take back what I said about
> Grok as a verb and Grok as a noun.  The argument becomes Grok-the-API
> versus Grok-the-particular-implementation.  In which case, I think for
> the moment I have to give Martijn's naming scheme:
> 
> +1

Yes, it's Grok the API versus Grok the particular implementation. I'd 
like to add the extra bit that the five.grok implementation already 
shares a lot of Grok's implementation and underlying libraries, and has 
the aim to share more in the future.

Regards,

Martijn