Wed, 29 Dec 1999 09:08:08 -0500
> Paul Prescod:
> > * I actually use groves more than the DOM.
> BTW, do you use the GPS package for your groves?
No, I used groves long before GPS came about and GPS has one big
difference from the three implementations I've used in the past. It uses
item syntax for fetching properties instead of attr syntax. Geir says
that this is because Zope doesn't like __getattr__ overrides. Nobody has
had time to do the research necessary to resolve this issue.
> Have you considered adding a few paragraphs on inheritance (in the pure sense,
> and not funked by C++'s confusions) to your groves short tutorial? We use a
> lot of data-polymorphism in our designs and we've had a hard time figuring out
> how to model that in the grove view.
Currently the grove view is flat. Groves have no data modelling
capabilities that do not directly relate to addressing. In my humble
opinion someone should probably take the best ideas from groves and put
them on top of a richer data modelling language like RDF schemas or OMG
object definition language. There are too many ways to spell "integer"
and "attribute" in the world.
> About groves in general, I think it's a wonderful model, and quite natural, if
> not for all the very odd terminology and inscrutable language in the standards
At least the specification is extremely formal and precise!