James Bennett wrote:
Any way of implementing this is going to require you to specify
*somewhere* which GET parameters are relevant to caching a particular
view, and it'd be hard to implement that directly in the view syntax
(since not everyone will be using caching). The proposed decorator
does the next best thing to having it directly "in" the view, and
keeps that information bundled with your view code instead of storing
it somewhere else. So it gets a +1 from me.
And while DRY is great, I'm still not convinced that this is a
violation of it, or at least one we need to worry too much about -- if
strictly following DRY means needlessly complicating things, then I
don't think it should be strictly followed.
I completely agree. I was just expressing a concern about it, may be
someone would come up with a better solution. Thinking about the issue I
too fail to invent something absolutely automatic...
