On 19 October 2010 05:10, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Will Hardy wrote:
>> Whilst I agree that messing with contrib.auth is likely to break
>> something and create more work, I think it would be good for Django if
>> everyone in the Django community went and nee
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Will Hardy wrote:
> Whilst I agree that messing with contrib.auth is likely to break
> something and create more work, I think it would be good for Django if
> everyone in the Django community went and needlessly ported their real
> world views to CBV, to expose a
Whilst I agree that messing with contrib.auth is likely to break
something and create more work, I think it would be good for Django if
everyone in the Django community went and needlessly ported their real
world views to CBV, to expose any deficiencies in the framework before
release.
Even if the
2010/10/18 Łukasz Rekucki :
> Somehow related, I was wondering today, would it be a good idea to try
> to rewrite contrib.auth views in terms of CBV, so that other parts of
> Django could benefit.
I'm not particularly clear on what other parts would benefit -- fill me in?
In general, I frown on r
On 19 October 2010 01:17, Gabriel Hurley wrote:
> I got my first real taste of the new API today by thoroughly proofing
> the docs for class-based views. I just wanted to say that there's some
> great stuff in there, and I give a big thanks to everyone who
> contributed! I'm really looking forward
I got my first real taste of the new API today by thoroughly proofing
the docs for class-based views. I just wanted to say that there's some
great stuff in there, and I give a big thanks to everyone who
contributed! I'm really looking forward to using the new class-based
views ASAP.
Thanks!
-
On 18 October 2010 01:49, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
> However, you will note that the topic guide that Andrew prepared has a
> section heading specifically targeted at JSON responses. That section
> isn't written yet, but the idea is to put in a guide on how to handle
> JSON responses as way to
Thinking about it more, I think that the approach you took makes more
sense.
Regards,
Eduardo
On Oct 17, 7:49 pm, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 2:00 AM, legutierr wrote:
>
> > On Oct 17, 11:58 am, Russell Keith-Magee
> > wrote:
> >> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:45 AM, Russ
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 2:00 AM, legutierr wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 17, 11:58 am, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:45 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
>>
>> I should also be able to port the tutorial before I commit -- which,
>> barring objection, I will do tomorrow night my time (abo
On Oct 17, 3:51 pm, Łukasz Rekucki wrote:
>
> Currently, you can override only how successful responses are
> rendered. I'm going to try to work on this on my branch, but I have a
> small problem: In number of places, views raise Http404 which then get
> rendered by the default 404 handler (whi
On 17 October 2010 23:29, George Sakkis wrote:
> On Oct 17, 5:58 pm, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:45 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
>>
>>
>>
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:09 AM, Justin Lilly
>> > wrote:
>> >> Because you asked, I think this sounds like a great
On Oct 17, 5:58 pm, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:45 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
>
>
>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:09 AM, Justin Lilly
> > wrote:
> >> Because you asked, I think this sounds like a great idea.
>
> >> When you have decided you like the API for cre
On 17 October 2010 20:00, legutierr wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 17, 11:58 am, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:45 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
>>
>> I should also be able to port the tutorial before I commit -- which,
>> barring objection, I will do tomorrow night my time (about 24 h
On Oct 17, 11:58 am, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:45 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
>
> I should also be able to port the tutorial before I commit -- which,
> barring objection, I will do tomorrow night my time (about 24 hours
> from now). Speak now, etc etc.
>
> Yours,
> Rus
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:45 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:09 AM, Justin Lilly wrote:
>> Because you asked, I think this sounds like a great idea.
>>
>> When you have decided you like the API for create/update
>> views, please send another email to the list, so that
On Sunday, October 17, 2010, Yo-Yo Ma wrote:
> Gabriel
>
> You don't have to go to thesaurus.com with the intention of generating
> a more formidable argument. I was merely offering my opinion. Playing
> devil's advocate should be regarded as counter constructive. If I see
> a man about to throw a
> I was merely offering my opinion. Playing
> devil's advocate should[n't] be regarded as counter constructive.
But it is, playing devil's advocate is by definition a destructive
position. There's nothing particularly wrong with that in general, but
it's a little late in the class-based-views dis
Typo (on iPhone): should read, "...devil's advocate shouldn't be..."
On Oct 16, 2:24 pm, Yo-Yo Ma wrote:
> Gabriel
>
> You don't have to go to thesaurus.com with the intention of generating
> a more formidable argument. I was merely offering my opinion. Playing
> devil's advocate should be regard
Gabriel
You don't have to go to thesaurus.com with the intention of generating
a more formidable argument. I was merely offering my opinion. Playing
devil's advocate should be regarded as counter constructive. If I see
a man about to throw an egg at an otherwise clean wall, I don't need
to offer h
On Oct 16, 2:34 am, Gabriel Hurley wrote:
> > What do you call this. I don't see how any software developer could
> > consider constructive criticism as anything other than helping out.
>
> You've posted three messages in this thread, but none of them seem
> "constructive" to me. You've pointed ou
> What do you call this. I don't see how any software developer could
> consider constructive criticism as anything other than helping out.
You've posted three messages in this thread, but none of them seem
"constructive" to me. You've pointed out areas of disagreement and
used inflammatory hyperb
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Yo-Yo Ma wrote:
> Łukasz Rekucki,
>
> Thanks for the reply. I wasn't being cynical when I said:
>
> > If the API for this feature was not so intrinsically
> > obscure, it might be a more obvious choice to include it right away,
>
> What I meant was the design and
Łukasz Rekucki,
Thanks for the reply. I wasn't being cynical when I said:
> If the API for this feature was not so intrinsically
> obscure, it might be a more obvious choice to include it right away,
What I meant was the design and implementation creates an unusable API
by default. This is a sig
On 15 October 2010 21:40, Yo-Yo Ma wrote:
> My strong suggestion (again prima facie to this discussion) is:
>
> Do not include something as controversial into the trunk, especially
> with the justification of, "There are quite a few sets of class-based
> views out there".
That section probably ne
My strong suggestion (again prima facie to this discussion) is:
Do not include something as controversial into the trunk, especially
with the justification of, "There are quite a few sets of class-based
views out there". If the API for this feature was not so intrinsically
obscure, it might be a m
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:09 AM, Justin Lilly wrote:
> Because you asked, I think this sounds like a great idea.
>
> When you have decided you like the API for create/update
> views, please send another email to the list, so that we
> know we've hit a stable API to write documentation
> against.
On 15/10/10 14:52, Ian Lewis wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
mailto:russ...@keith-magee.com>> wrote:
However, this isn't a decision we need to make right now. If we land
what we have, we can fiddle with it until the RC comes out; if we are
getting to tha
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Russell Keith-Magee <
russ...@keith-magee.com> wrote:
>
> > There is this crazy idea im my mind to mark CBVs API as
> > "Beta" in 1.3 and put a big warning in the docs that it can change in
> > backwards-incompatible was in 1.4. A precedence to this would be
> > `d
On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 00:19 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> Unfortunately, the 1.3 alpha deadline is Monday. Over the next couple
> of days, I intend to finish my audit of edit and date views, and make
> a start on at least reference documentation, but it's highly unlikely
> I'm going to get a
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 8:30 PM, David De La Harpe Golden
wrote:
> On 15/10/10 07:11, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
>> We're happy to entertain design suggestions, but only if they're
>> enlightened by the extensive discussions that have proceeded the
>> implementation that we have. You're free to
On 15/10/10 07:11, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> We're happy to entertain design suggestions, but only if they're
> enlightened by the extensive discussions that have proceeded the
> implementation that we have. You're free to say "as_view() sucks", but
> unless you are proposing an *specific* alte
Maybe not important but makes bit harder to find in it trac :)
Russ there is a typo in subject, ticket id is #6735, not 6375.
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Yo-Yo Ma wrote:
>> I realize this is a bit late and not even the "right" d
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Yo-Yo Ma wrote:
> I realize this is a bit late and not even the "right" discussion, bit
> I just stumbled across this and the wiki, and I feel a bit sick to my
> stomach.
>
> 1) self.request?
>
> Whatever gains come from this will be offset by loss in design. A
> m
I realize this is a bit late and not even the "right" discussion, bit
I just stumbled across this and the wiki, and I feel a bit sick to my
stomach.
1) self.request?
Whatever gains come from this will be offset by loss in design. A
method is called by a request. That is simple common sense. A met
2010/10/15 Łukasz Rekucki :
> On 14 October 2010 18:19, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>>
>> The following things are still needed:
>>
>> * An audit of create/update views.
>> * An audit of date views.
>
> I was planning on hacking onto this on today/tomorrow. Also see below.
>
>> * Documentation,
On 14 October 2010 18:19, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
> The following things are still needed:
>
> * An audit of create/update views.
> * An audit of date views.
I was planning on hacking onto this on today/tomorrow. Also see below.
> * Documentation, including
> - changes to the tutorial
Because you asked, I think this sounds like a great idea.
When you have decided you like the API for create/update
views, please send another email to the list, so that we
know we've hit a stable API to write documentation
against.
-justin
--
You received this message because you are subscribe
Hi all,
With the deadline for 1.3 alpha rapidly approaching, it's getting to
crunch time for class-based views.
The wiki page [1] now contains a good summary of the debate so far,
showing why we have ended up at the "ClassBasedView.as_view()"
deployment solution. I've also got a implementation up
38 matches
Mail list logo
