On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Florian Apolloner <f.apollo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, this seems like a major pain point, especially since the routing does > not scale if you add another app, ie you need to add a wrapper which then > dispatches to the individual connect routines. In a best case scenario I'd > just have to add another router in the settings and get everything > dispatched to the correct handlers (in that sense, the ROUTING setting > should allow for multiple entries). > Ah yes, this was a point I forgot -- thanks for making it! Yes, if we want reusable apps that use websockets, we'll need some sort of routing to make that not painful. > Maybe something along the lines of: > [snip] I'd considered an API like this, and it's certainly clean and straightforward. However, we've already got a URL routing library in Django, so I think I'd like to try to find a way to re-use it for websockets. It'd be a shame to have two different URL-routing-things in Django (especially since they'd almost certainly have subtlety different semantics). Jacob -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAK8PqJFm853gxfEK7XNHyRn4Fb_ObKV0v6WC9zE4wtEHLzfQqg%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
