[Grok-dev] Re: What would a megrok.z3cform (and a Zope2/plone.z3cform equivalent) look like?

[Martin Aspeli]

Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>>
>> Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
>>> It won't work because namespace package's __init__.py may not contain 
>>> code. Imports are code (the five.grok package is supposed to provide a 
>>> Grok-like API).
>>>
>>> Let's stay with flat namespaces.
>> Then what should we call it?
>>
>> megrok.five.z3cform?
>> five.megrok.z3cform?
> 
> This ain't flat :)
> 
>> megrokfive.z3cform?
> 
> I'd prefer if we can do without lots of new top level namespaces.
> 
>> five.z3cform?
> 
> Yup. Something like that.

Except that's quite weird. five.z3cform sounds like the Zope 2 
integration for z3cform, but in fact that's plone.z3cform.

I'd prefer five.megrok.z3cform as the accompaniment to megrok.z3cform. I 
don't really understand the fuss around having two levels of namespacing.

> Or just make plone.z3cform have the grokkified 
> stuff as well. E.g.
> 
>    from plone.z3cform.grok import EditForm
> 
> or whatever. That's probably what I'd prefer. But it's your call.

I'd prefer that too, but people want to be able to use the plone.z3cform 
package without grokcore.* dependencies (in particular, CMF may want to 
do that).

Martin

-- 
Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who
want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book