On 9/7/07, Marty Alchin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Now, this point I might not be understanding correctly. Are you asking > for Django's core to define an interface for each and every potential > use someone might find for it? While I can understand the marginal > benefit such interfaces might provide, I can't imagine it would be > worthwhile to require Django itself to be responsible for all of > these. > > After all, what happens when somebody finds something new to do with > Django, or they'd like to add an attribute or method to an existing > interface? Well, then we go back to your second point, where we have > to wait for the Django team to agree on the changes and implement it, > before anybody can do anything.
And I should also explain how this benefit could indeed be achieved without modifying Django core. As strange as this may sound, community-established standards could work. If we had a central place to discuss, standardize, document and publish common paradigms, developers could easily find the information they need when building their ducks. This could be as simple as setting up a website, something like djangostandards.org or something, with tools to discuss and document these things. Then, as long as the site makes it easy to find existing standards, developers will easily see what they'll be expected to provide if they want to be interoperable. Again, it all comes down to documentation. Using interface explicitly in code is just a band-aid to allow developers to read and write less documentation. -Gul --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
