On 01/06/12 15:54, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Victor Hooi <victorh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The reason for my post - is there anything from the Django core as a whole
>> on this? What's the future roadmap like in terms of CBV's? Are there going
>> to be any changes to it, or are we safe to assume things will be as they are
>> now.
> I think as a whole we're.... divided. Luke's opinions differ from
> mine, and it's entirely unclear to me who's "right" or even if there's
> a "right" to be had. And that's just the two of us!

I personally found all the responses and discussion really enlightening,
and it moderated my opinions somewhat.

Here are the things I'd like to actually see change:

1) An easy one: Some documentation to the effect of this: "The
Django-supplied CBV base classes may not be the best fit for your
project. Consider two alternatives - use a function, or write your own
base classes."

I'm happy to write that paragraph if others agree.

2) A harder one: nicer functional way of using CBVs in the simple case,
so they can be used from traditional function view without subclassing.
In theory, you can do this:

def my_view(request):
    return ListView.as_view(template_name='foo.html')

However, you've got a few problems:

* you can't pass in the extra context you need, which is pretty much a
  crucial requirement
* you have some gotchas with things like POST requests.

I found I had to write something like this snippet:


But it's not ideal in a number of ways, like needing its own
documentation, since it doesn't just set parameters on ListView.


    Cleanliness is next to impossible.

Luke Plant || http://lukeplant.me.uk/

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to