Le 7 mars 08 à 20:26, Jared Flatow a écrit :
> > On Mar 7, 2008, at 3:19 AM, versae wrote: >> After working with great intensity with django-restapi we discovered >> some fails and some unimplemented features, > > Anything in particular? Same here, we (my team) need to fix a lot of things in the original restapi but your implementation looks really interesting! Our main concerns were to handle: * privacy at verb level and we use decorators too * issues with caching when you use the same collection with different renderers or when you want to filter a queryset but you seemed to fix that point with the new implementation (I hadn't verified) * ModelForm instead of model_for_* which are now deprecated (not finished, still in my todo), your implementation do not cover html yet There are other custom additions but it's a bit specific to our application. We'll see that later. > > >> but our code is so large, >> and I don't know whether your code proposal is backward compatible or >> whether it will be added to trunk of django-rest-interface. > > Its not backwards compatible, more of an alternative. It think it > would be best if all REST interface development was focused on the > same project (it seems spread thin enough as it is), which is why I > haven't yet created another separate source tree. I totally agree with that point. A branch of the actual project is sufficient. > > >> Anyways, we will study your code and if you agree, we can contribute >> in a branch leaded by you. > > I look forward to hearing your thoughts! I'm with you too, happy to see that this project is still alive. Cheers, David --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
