Yeah, I agree, as it is, I can't see any reason why I would use it, but I could see it being useful with some modifications such as:
1) Being able to create redirects (which seems to already be on the todo-list) 2) Being able to specify extra kwargs to pass to a view so that it would be possible to change the functionality of a view without adding a new model to store the different options (or have to change the urlconfig and push new code every time). Until those things are implemented (which allow for things that could probably be implemented in more straightforward/non-dev-user friendly ways), it seems like a bad idea to store infrastructure in the database (I can only see it causing problems when you have developers working from a different urlconf than the production server is using). On Friday, December 14, 2012 11:31:34 PM UTC-6, Amirouche B. wrote: > > > > On Friday, December 7, 2012 9:07:32 PM UTC+1, Zach Borboa wrote: >> >> Does something like this exist already? If not, it should. > > > How this can be useful ? You still need to write the view in Python then > why not write the urls in Python too, like it's currently the way to go. > > If something in this spirit might be useful is something where the view > could be generated which would be something like databrowser or admin. > > Could you elaborate ? > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/django-developers/-/GSfX8xoF550J. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
