On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Russell Keith-Magee<[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 8:37 PM, zellyn<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> [Hi folks. This is a re-post, now that 1.1 has been released.] >> >> Django's contrib.syndication app feels different from normal views, >> using a dictionary and dispatching by slug, then finding objects by >> splitting the rest of the URL into "bits". >> >> It takes surprisingly few changes to make Feeds respond as normal >> views: define the __call__ method on Feed objects. >> >> Here are the changes required (using pastry.se for its diffing >> capability): http://pastry.se/46009/#e46010 >> And here's the output of `svn diff`: http://pastry.se/46016/ >> >> Thoughts, comments, suggestions? > > I completely agree that the feeds framework is due for a shakeup. On > my personal wish list in this area: > > * Parameterized feeds. The 'bits' in a feed URL currently need to be > the trailing parts of a URL. That isn't always convenient - what if I > want /mystuff/(.*)/feed, not /mystuff/feed/(.*) ? > > * Named urls. I should be able to reference a feed's URL (including > parameterized parts) using the {% url %} tag. > > * Making individual feed views decoratable (e.g., for caching, or > Http Authentication) > > On top of this, there is a general problem of backwards compatibility: > whatever changes are made, existing code can't break. > > It looks like you might be heading down a similar path - although I'm > a little hazy on some of the details. It looks like there is some code > missing (at the very least, documentation on the purpose of > get_view_object, or at least an implementation of get_view_object to > use as a reference). However, from what I can make out, what you have > makes sense. > > My one concern is the extent to which the "new" feeds interface will > contain legacy elements. Most notable is the need to provide a 'slug' > when constructing the feed instances. At the very least, it strikes me > that slug should be an optional argument, since it doesn't really make > much sense outside of the classic feed deployment view. > > Regardless of any particular implementation issues, the basic idea > (cleaning up feed deployment) is certainly worth sticking on the v1.2 > feature list. Open a ticket and add it to the feature page on the wiki > to make sure it gets considered when the time comes. > > Yours, > Russ Magee %-) > > > >
Ben Firshman has written similar code that is backwards compatible with the current implementation: http://github.com/bfirsh/syndication-view/tree/master Alex -- "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire "The people's good is the highest law." -- Cicero "Code can always be simpler than you think, but never as simple as you want" -- Me --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
