I think a better approach would be to have django.utils.simplejson as
a sort of alias package (which is easy using Python's introspection).
What would happen is this:
A user imports either django.utils.simplejson, or something from
inside it.
We look for the 'json' package on the path (Python
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:10 AM, David Reynolds
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That doesn't help if you want to continue using the login/logout views
> from django.contrib.auth.views
Since you can drop callables directly into URL patterns, you can write
a decorator which does what you need, import
On 1 Dec 2008, at 12:27, Julien Phalip wrote:
> I think you could achieve that without patching Django. You could
> simply create a custom view which wraps around auth.logout and calls
> your other method.
That doesn't help if you want to continue using the login/logout views
from
On Dec 1, 11:07 pm, David Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2008, at 11:49, David Reynolds wrote:
> > I have a custom authentication backend that requires a method to be
> > run to log out of the system. It would be quite useful if there was a
> > way
> > to hook into the
On 1 Dec 2008, at 11:49, David Reynolds wrote:
>
> I have a custom authentication backend that requires a method to be
> run to log out of the system. It would be quite useful if there was a
> way
> to hook into the django.contrib.auth.logout method to run this custom
> method.
>
> The best
I have nothing against removing it from the built-in libs, but as long
as we look for the system's libraries first what's the big downside to
keeping it?
On Dec 1, 5:02 am, "Russell Keith-Magee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:21 PM, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have a custom authentication backend that requires a method to be
run to log out of the system. It would be quite useful if there was a
way
to hook into the django.contrib.auth.logout method to run this custom
method.
The best way I can think of is to add a logout method to the
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:21 PM, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 12:45 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess the thing that's bugging me is that this mostly seems to come
> down to historical inertia; we already have simplejson in
