Sure, I'll go through the list of url tickets on Trac. 

The key difference with #11642 is "default". What I propose is that urls.py 
specifies the app_name, period. The only reason to change app_name is 
conflicting app names, and there are easy workarounds that I feel shouldn't 
be part of the API itself. The namespace would be specified in include(), 
and default to the app_name. 

Op donderdag 28 mei 2015 15:37:20 UTC+2 schreef Tim Graham:
>
> Point 1 sounds like https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/11642 -- and 
> that ticket says it may be superseded by 
> https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/21927. Could you review those 
> tickets as well as the others in the "Core (URLs)" component of Trac? It 
> would be good if you could assign yourself any tickets that your project 
> will address.
>
> On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 5:58:00 PM UTC-4, Marten Kenbeek wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> URL namespaces have a few quirks that make them a bit difficult to use 
>> and understand. I hope to create a patch that clears up these issues. 
>>
>> First up: the distinction between an application namespace and an 
>> instance namespace. The docs say on the application namespace:
>>
>> This describes the name of the application that is being deployed. Every 
>>> instance of a single application will have the same application namespace.
>>
>>
>> And on the instance namespace: 
>>
>> This identifies a specific instance of an application. Instance 
>>> namespaces should be unique across your entire project. However, an 
>>> instance namespace can be the same as the application namespace. This is 
>>> used to specify a default instance of an application. 
>>
>>
>> The current implementation requires that both are specified in the same 
>> place: either in the included url configuration by returning a 3-tuple, or 
>> in the including url configuration through the arguments to include(). The 
>> first case generally does not allow multiple deployments of the same app, 
>> unless the included url configuration contains specific logic to return 
>> different instance namespaces. The second case does not in any way enforce 
>> that multiple deployments in fact have the same application namespace. 
>>
>> I'd like to get the semantics and the implementation in line, and provide 
>> one obvious way to specify namespaces. Including a set of url patterns 
>> under a namespace involves two parts: the including urlconf that calls 
>> include(), and the included urlconf that is imported by include(). The 
>> first is a specific deployment of the imported urlconf; the second is a 
>> single app. 
>>
>> The obvious way as I see it would be to specify the application namespace 
>> in the app, and specify the instance namespace as a parameter to include(). 
>> This enforces the single application namespace for a single set of 
>> patterns, and allows any end-user to specify the instance namespace on a 
>> per-instance basis. To take the admin as an example:
>>
>> admin.site.urls would return a 2-tuple: (patterns, 'admin'), where 
>> 'admin' is the application namespace. (An alternative to a 2-tuple could be 
>> an object with urlpatterns and app_name attributes.)
>> To include the admin instance, use include(admin.site.urls, 
>> namespace='admin'). This is the instance namespace. If left out, it could 
>> default to be the same as the app name.
>>
>> After a deprecation period, it would be an error to specify an instance 
>> namespace if there is no application namespace. This is to ensure that the 
>> app can always reverse its own urls using <app_name>:<view_name> if it 
>> specifies an application namespace, and using <view_name> if it doesn't. 
>> (Setting and app_name would technically still be possible by passing a 
>> hardcoded (patterns, app_name) tuple, just not as an advertised feature.)
>>
>> The second point is about nested namespace handling and current_app. 
>>
>> At the moment, current_app is looking for an exact namespace match. 
>> Unlike the namespaced view path, it is not split into namespace parts using 
>> current_app.split(':'). Take the following (fictional) urlpatterns:
>>
>> blog_patterns = [
>>     url(r'^comments-one/', include('comments.urls', 'comments-one', 
>> 'comments')),
>>     url(r'^comments-two/', include('comments.urls', 'comments-two', 
>> 'comments')),
>> ]
>>
>> urlpatterns = [
>>     url(r'^blog-one/', include(blog_patterns, 'blog-one', 'blog')),
>>     url(r'^blog-two/', include(blog_patterns, 'blog-two', 'blog')),
>> ]
>>
>> Because of how current_app is handled, it is now impossible to reverse 
>> patterns in 'blog-one:comments-one:' using current_app. To select 
>> 'blog-one', the current app needs to be the string 'blog-one', but to 
>> select 'comments-one', it needs to be 'comments-one'. The only solution is 
>> to hardcode at least one of the instance namespaces in the namespaced view 
>> path. This also means that setting request.current_app to 
>> request.resolver_match.namespace, as recommended in the docs, does not work 
>> if you have nested namespaces. 
>>
>> The ResolverMatch object also has some inconsistent behaviour for 
>> app_name. resolver_match.namespace is the full namespace path, i.e. 
>> 'blog-one:comments-one' (with resolver_match.namespaces a list of 
>> individual namespaces, i.e. ['blog-one', 'comments-one']), but 
>> resolver_match.app_name is the outer-most app_name, in this case 
>> 'blog-one', with no trace whatsoever of the full app_name path. 
>>
>> To illustrate how I would see it end up eventually (after the deprecation 
>> cycle), I've created a branch at 
>> https://github.com/knbk/django/tree/namespaces. I feel these changes are 
>> fairly straightforward, but any comments are appreciated. 
>>
>> Marten
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" 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/5a445b02-5d78-49b5-a2f1-81a4e1b68d2d%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to