On Tuesday 15 October 2013 11:49:32 Anssi Kääriäinen wrote: > On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 8:23:38 AM UTC+3, gavi...@gmail.com wrote: > > This topic was also discussed during the deprecation of > > TransactionMiddleware and the introduction of ATOMIC_REQUESTS. The > > existing middleware semantics can't guarantee that __exit__ (during > > process_response) will get called no matter what, necessitating the > > setting that invokes BaseHandler.make_view_atomic. make_view_atomic > > implements basically what you're suggesting, for one specific case > > (DB/ORM code in the front controller, ick!). > > > > I am not suggesting using the above process() example in Django. The > semantics for process_exception() in particular are backwards incompatible. > It is just an example that you can achieve what is currently available with > process_request(), process_response() and process_exception() methods, but > with obvious semantics. >
I think the middlewares have grown a little complicated, and I'd try to avoid adding functionality there. That said, the feature of universal decoration seems like it is worthwhile. I'd try to see if it can be added through the urls mechanism instead -- you'd get behavior that is more like a decorator, in the sense that decoration would happen only once. Shai. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/201310162036.05529.shai%40platonix.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
