On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Jordan Hagan <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm sorry if I came across that way, that wasn't my intention at all. > Andre Terra who was the one to initially raise opposition has changed his > stance on the functionality since he first posted, as per his email 4 days > ago. Aside from him there is Tino de Bruijn who voiced opposition, although > he seems to be the only other person in the history of the thread (not > counting your post just now). There was also Michael van Tellingen, however > I'm not 100% sure what his position on the topic is. No worries - I'm not accusing you of malicious intent. I'm just calling out some language that possibly reflects a misunderstanding on your part of the current status of the discussion. > From my count there are 8 people in this thread in support of the > functionality, and 2 people against it (1 at the time of my previous > message). > The bit you're possibly missing due to the way GMail handles some replied: this thread was a respawn of an older thread from 6 months ago. The google group has the full thread. https://groups.google.com/d/topic/django-developers/7c7aI-slGNc/discussion Plus: 1) As Łukasz points out -- silence doesn't imply consent. There are 7340 people subscribed to django-developers. Getting 5 people to agree doesn't really reflect any sort of statistical sample. 2) Unless you've got buy in from a core developer, you can have all the consensus you like -- your code still isn't going to make it to trunk. Of course, you might just be using your 5-person consensus to establish that it's worth going to the trouble of actually working up a patch, but it sounded like you were under the impression that your 5-person consensus was enough to end up with a patch in trunk, and I want to moderate your expectations. In regards to your concerns, which mainly seem to be in regards to how many > people would actually utilize this feature / are currently working around > it I'm not sure how to address that. I suppose mixins are the solution for > now then, however it does seem to me like something that anyone who is > making extensive use of class based views will eventually come up against. > I'm not saying that you don't have a use for this type of entry point. What I'm saying is that you're advocating making the basic entry sequence of class based views (and thus, the documentation and learning curve) more complex, all to service a use case that can be achieved with subclassing. And, in the limited subset of people that have *huge* subclassing overheads and find themselves writing that subclassing code over and over again, that subset can write a new base subclass or mixing that introduces the complexity. What I *don't* see is a generic, across the board need that warrants *every* user being forced to carry the overhead so that *some* users have a convenience that can be achieved by other means. Yours, Russ Magee %-) -- 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.
