Hi Mark, On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Mark Lavin <markdla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Major features have never been perfect, no, but they have in the past > typically gone through two paths to prove out their design/API/usefulness. > One is as an established and mature third-party app such as messages, > staticfiles, and django-secure. More recently the other has been through > the DEP process: multiple templates (Jinja) and query expressions. Channels > has done neither. > > Sorry if it seems that I've raised these issues late but I don't feel like > there has been a good place for this discussion since the DEP process was > circumvented. Most of the development for this has been in Andrew's space. > I don't feel welcome to raise a dissenting opinion as a mere lowly member > of the Django community. > If that’s your perception, then we as a community clearly have a problem that needs to be addressed. You’ve been around the Django community since (AFAICT) 2009. You’re a technical director at a well known and well respected Django consultancy. You’ve given talks at DjangoCons. You’ve co-written a book about Django for O’Reilly. If you’re not someone who is in a position to give an informed opinion on issues with Channels, then I don’t know who is. If you feel like you’re on the outer and your opinion is not welcome, then that’s *our* failure, not yours. I can’t argue with the fact that the DEP process has been circumvented here. I also acknowledge that this would be doubly frustrating given your difficulties shepherding the content negotiation DEP. I don’t think I can give a good answer for why this has been done, other than enthusiasm and momentum overriding a not-entirely-well-established process. This thread (and email in general) probably isn’t the best place to flesh out the solution to these process issues, but they definitely need to be resolved. Discussion at PyCon and DjangoCon US is definitely called for - I’ll be at both, and I’d definitely be interested in a BOF or similar session to field opinions and thoughts from the community about this process. > It's pointless for me to continue to elaborate on the things I don't like > about channels as I'm clearly in the minority and it's going to land. All I > can do now is beg for these requirements to be optional. > Talking about channels specifically: This shouldn’t be true at all. There’s certainly some momentum, but the code isn’t in trunk, so it’s not too late. Even if it *was* in trunk - if you could demonstrate that there was a serious problem, I’d support removing it from the codebase. I will admin that I haven’t been paying *close* attention to Andrew’s work - I’m aware of the broad strokes, and I’ve skimmed some of the design discussions, but I haven’t been keeping close tabs on things. From that (admittedly weak) position, the only counterargument that I’ve heard are performance concerns. However, the last thing I heard on this subject was that the “raw WSGI” path was essentially unmodified, so there shouldn’t be any particular performance concerns from adding this to the codebase - just new functionality for targeting websockets. For me, websockets are a big area where Django is currently lacking, and everything I’ve read about Andrew’s proposal has struck me as a reasonable compromise between Django’s need to respond to a technical requirement, while maintaining ease of implementation. I take it that this isn’t your opinion. If you’ve got other concerns - be they specific implementation issues, or broader philosophical issues, I’d strongly encourage you to express them. The core team and/or technical board might not agree with you, but we’d be fools to ignore your experience and opinions. At the absolute minimum, you’ve earned a considered response to your concerns. Yours, Russ Magee %-) -- 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/CAJxq8496_ubAO38nszXeb-eknunhwmUXXrrVG8_-RwHS7qHARA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
