[Grok-dev] Re: Grok nomenclature

[Martijn Faassen]

Martin Aspeli wrote:
[snip]
>> I realize that using conventions is more attractive if you are 
>> evolving code forward that doesn't use Grok yet. That said, I still 
>> hope for an end result of the evolution where there is a package which 
>> just has classes, and that knowledge of whether it needs to 
>> auto-register is actually not very relevant to the programmer. It's an 
>> implementation detail, just like whether a meta-class is in use should 
>> be an implementation detail (where, as you'll note, no conventions are 
>> in use to mark them out either).
> 
> Mmm... I'm not sure that's a desirable end goal if taken to extremes. 
> Yes, it makes sense for some primitives (like views, say), but if I 
> suddenly get a lot of new behaviour by subclassing something, and that 
> fact is hidden away from me, it'd be hard to debug and understand.

Actually I'd say it's not typically hidden away. It's signaled by a 
directive (grok.grokked(), say), *or* by the base class being used in 
the first place.  There are also frequently other directives that can 
signal you.

Compare with ZCML, where there is truly no information in the code that 
this code will be registered by some file somewhere, perhaps even 10 
packages away. If you are in favor of conventions, why are you not 
suggesting we prefix ZCML registered classes with a Z, say? :)

Regards,

Martijn