Hello Ludovic,
On 04 Oct 2016, at 14:25, ludovic coues <cou...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have a better DEP for you. > Introduce a dependency on django-simple-url. I don’t think we want to depend on a third party package for something as fundamental as URL dispatching. We can take good ideas and, if the license allows it, good code from there, though. > I would like as much as anybody a better > way to write url than regex. But I feel like the process is rushed. Major changes to Django are often driven by flares of excitement. I’m sorry if that makes you uncomfortable. Usually the excitement fades quickly and then the more boring work on the DEP starts. Moving on to your actual questions... > What are the merit of the new URL Convention ? The starting slash and trailing slash are separate questions; let’s not mix them. > * Why do we suddenly start with slash while the regex url end with a slash ? Historically Django doesn’t include the starting slash because it’s always there, so there’s no need to specify it every time. However everyone else writes URLs /foo/bar/ rather than foo/bar/. Reversing the historical decision would remove a pitfall. I think it’s worth doing it and I also thing it’s worth explaining why in the DEP. > * Are we following the non-existent flask convention ? Which sometime > end with a slash, sometimes not ? > * Are we following the ruby on rail convention ? I assume you’re talking about the trailing slash, but if you want to have a discussion, you’ll have to ask your question more constructively. > * The proposed convention would make the default admin url "/admin//“. You’re allowed to think that you’re talking to complete morons but I would appreciate if you didn’t make it that obvious. > Why the "preventing unintented error” ? The DEP needs to discuss the developer experience during and after the change. > * Why the shim is trying to be smart and use the typed url ? I expect further discussion on this topic. Constructive arguments welcome. > * Why introducing a new function named url if we believe it will be a > cause of error ? This part of the DEP is being debated right now. > Why do we keep the old routing system ? > * How old is this code ? Mostly pre-1.0, as far as I know, but that doesn’t mean much. It’s pretty good. > * Do we plan to keep it forever ? I didn’t see a proposal to deprecate it in the DEP, all the more since the plan is to build the simplified system upon the current system. > * Do we plan to make it harder to change it ? I’m not sure why you’re saying that nor what kind of answer you expect. > * Do we want to prevent third party module providing alternative > routing system ? Look at Marteen Kenbeek’s GSoC for the general direction we’re taking and please ask the question in a less obviously biased way. Thanks, -- Aymeric. -- 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/C79B391D-DC6D-4127-BC90-C2E32DE0937B%40polytechnique.org. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
