On Oct 4, 2016 15:53, ludovic coues <cou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> The question about the old routing system is about the plan to build
> on top the old one. I'm not saying the old one is bad. But if we start
> to build upon it, it will be harder to replace it. It might be more
> interesting to refactor the routing system, so the new one could be
> build next to the old one, rather than on top.
>
> This might open the way for third party module providing new way to
> route request in django.
To be fair, the current routing system is reasonably loosely coupled to the rest of Django. If the simpler version were to be built on top of the old system, it would be tightly coupled to the old system, but would not make it any harder to replace it with another 3rd party module than currently is possible.
As I documented in my blog post: if you want you can mostly replace the current URL routing, all you need is to have a class that defines `resolve`. Reversing URLs is a different matter, and I hope to work on a pull request to change the URL reversing to make it also a bit more pluggable.
--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/57f3db67.15691c0a.d1021.46a1SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
