Re: #6375 -- Class Based Views: Opinions on commit plan

On 19 October 2010 05:10, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Will Hardy wrote: >> Whilst I agree that messing with contrib.auth is likely to break >> something and create more work, I think it would be good for Django if

Re: #6375 -- Class Based Views: Opinions on commit plan

2010/10/18 Łukasz Rekucki : > Somehow related, I was wondering today, would it be a good idea to try > to rewrite contrib.auth views in terms of CBV, so that other parts of > Django could benefit. I'm not particularly clear on what other parts would benefit -- fill me in? In

Re: #6375 -- Class Based Views: Opinions on commit plan

On 19 October 2010 01:17, Gabriel Hurley wrote: > I got my first real taste of the new API today by thoroughly proofing > the docs for class-based views. I just wanted to say that there's some > great stuff in there, and I give a big thanks to everyone who > contributed! I'm

Re: #6375 -- Class Based Views: Opinions on commit plan

I got my first real taste of the new API today by thoroughly proofing the docs for class-based views. I just wanted to say that there's some great stuff in there, and I give a big thanks to everyone who contributed! I'm really looking forward to using the new class-based views ASAP. Thanks!

Re: #6375 -- Class Based Views: Opinions on commit plan

On 18 October 2010 01:49, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > > However, you will note that the topic guide that Andrew prepared has a > section heading specifically targeted at JSON responses. That section > isn't written yet, but the idea is to put in a guide on how to handle

Re: #6375 -- Class Based Views: Opinions on commit plan

Thinking about it more, I think that the approach you took makes more sense. Regards, Eduardo On Oct 17, 7:49 pm, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 2:00 AM, legutierr wrote: > > > On Oct 17, 11:58 am, Russell Keith-Magee

Re: #6375 -- Class Based Views: Opinions on commit plan

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 2:00 AM, legutierr wrote: > > > On Oct 17, 11:58 am, Russell Keith-Magee > wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:45 AM, Russell Keith-Magee >> >> I should also be able to port the tutorial before I commit -- which, >> barring

Re: #6375 -- Class Based Views: Opinions on commit plan

On Oct 17, 3:51 pm, Łukasz Rekucki wrote: > > Currently, you can override only how successful responses are > rendered. I'm going to try to work on this on my branch, but I have a > small problem: In number of places, views raise Http404 which then get > rendered by the

Re: #6375 -- Class Based Views: Opinions on commit plan

On 17 October 2010 23:29, George Sakkis wrote: > On Oct 17, 5:58 pm, Russell Keith-Magee > wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:45 AM, Russell Keith-Magee >> >> >> >> wrote: >> > On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:09 AM, Justin

Re: #6375 -- Class Based Views: Opinions on commit plan

On 17 October 2010 20:00, legutierr wrote: > > > On Oct 17, 11:58 am, Russell Keith-Magee > wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:45 AM, Russell Keith-Magee >> >> I should also be able to port the tutorial before I commit -- which, >> barring

Re: #6375 -- Class Based Views: Opinions on commit plan

On Oct 17, 11:58 am, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:45 AM, Russell Keith-Magee > > I should also be able to port the tutorial before I commit -- which, > barring objection, I will do tomorrow night my time (about 24 hours > from now). Speak now,

Re: #6375 -- Class Based Views: Opinions on commit plan

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:45 AM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:09 AM, Justin Lilly wrote: >> Because you asked, I think this sounds like a great idea. >> >> When you have decided you like the API for create/update >>

Re: #6375 -- Class Based Views: Opinions on commit plan

On Sunday, October 17, 2010, Yo-Yo Ma wrote: > Gabriel > > You don't have to go to thesaurus.com with the intention of generating > a more formidable argument. I was merely offering my opinion. Playing > devil's advocate should be regarded as counter constructive. If I

Re: #6375 -- Class Based Views: Opinions on commit plan

Typo (on iPhone): should read, "...devil's advocate shouldn't be..." On Oct 16, 2:24 pm, Yo-Yo Ma wrote: > Gabriel > > You don't have to go to thesaurus.com with the intention of generating > a more formidable argument. I was merely offering my opinion. Playing >

Re: #6375 -- Class Based Views: Opinions on commit plan

Gabriel You don't have to go to thesaurus.com with the intention of generating a more formidable argument. I was merely offering my opinion. Playing devil's advocate should be regarded as counter constructive. If I see a man about to throw an egg at an otherwise clean wall, I don't need to offer

Re: #6375 -- Class Based Views: Opinions on commit plan

On Oct 16, 2:34 am, Gabriel Hurley wrote: > > What do you call this. I don't see how any software developer could > > consider constructive criticism as anything other than helping out. > > You've posted three messages in this thread, but none of them seem > "constructive" to

Re: #6375 -- Class Based Views: Opinions on commit plan

> What do you call this. I don't see how any software developer could > consider constructive criticism as anything other than helping out. You've posted three messages in this thread, but none of them seem "constructive" to me. You've pointed out areas of disagreement and used inflammatory

Re: #6375 -- Class Based Views: Opinions on commit plan

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Yo-Yo Ma wrote: > Łukasz Rekucki, > > Thanks for the reply. I wasn't being cynical when I said: > > > If the API for this feature was not so intrinsically > > obscure, it might be a more obvious choice to include it right away, > > What

Re: #6375 -- Class Based Views: Opinions on commit plan

On 15 October 2010 21:40, Yo-Yo Ma wrote: > My strong suggestion (again prima facie to this discussion) is: > > Do not include something as controversial into the trunk, especially > with the justification of, "There are quite a few sets of class-based > views out

Re: #6375 -- Class Based Views: Opinions on commit plan

My strong suggestion (again prima facie to this discussion) is: Do not include something as controversial into the trunk, especially with the justification of, "There are quite a few sets of class-based views out there". If the API for this feature was not so intrinsically obscure, it might be a

Re: #6375 -- Class Based Views: Opinions on commit plan

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:09 AM, Justin Lilly wrote: > Because you asked, I think this sounds like a great idea. > > When you have decided you like the API for create/update > views, please send another email to the list, so that we > know we've hit a stable API to write

Re: #6375 -- Class Based Views: Opinions on commit plan

On 15/10/10 14:52, Ian Lewis wrote: On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Russell Keith-Magee > wrote: However, this isn't a decision we need to make right now. If we land what we have, we can fiddle with it until the RC comes out;

Re: #6375 -- Class Based Views: Opinions on commit plan

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Russell Keith-Magee < russ...@keith-magee.com> wrote: > > > There is this crazy idea im my mind to mark CBVs API as > > "Beta" in 1.3 and put a big warning in the docs that it can change in > > backwards-incompatible was in 1.4. A precedence to this would be > >

Re: #6375 -- Class Based Views: Opinions on commit plan

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 8:30 PM, David De La Harpe Golden wrote: > On 15/10/10 07:11, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > >> We're happy to entertain design suggestions, but only if they're >> enlightened by the extensive discussions that have proceeded the >>

Re: #6375 -- Class Based Views: Opinions on commit plan

On 15/10/10 07:11, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > We're happy to entertain design suggestions, but only if they're > enlightened by the extensive discussions that have proceeded the > implementation that we have. You're free to say "as_view() sucks", but > unless you are proposing an *specific*

Re: #6375 -- Class Based Views: Opinions on commit plan

Maybe not important but makes bit harder to find in it trac :) Russ there is a typo in subject, ticket id is #6735, not 6375. On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Yo-Yo Ma wrote: >> I

Re: #6375 -- Class Based Views: Opinions on commit plan

I realize this is a bit late and not even the "right" discussion, bit I just stumbled across this and the wiki, and I feel a bit sick to my stomach. 1) self.request? Whatever gains come from this will be offset by loss in design. A method is called by a request. That is simple common sense. A

Re: #6375 -- Class Based Views: Opinions on commit plan

2010/10/15 Łukasz Rekucki : > On 14 October 2010 18:19, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: >> >> The following things are still needed: >> >>  * An audit of create/update views. >>  * An audit of date views. > > I was planning on hacking onto this on

Re: #6375 -- Class Based Views: Opinions on commit plan

On 14 October 2010 18:19, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > > The following things are still needed: > >  * An audit of create/update views. >  * An audit of date views. I was planning on hacking onto this on today/tomorrow. Also see below. >  * Documentation, including >    

Re: #6375 -- Class Based Views: Opinions on commit plan

Because you asked, I think this sounds like a great idea. When you have decided you like the API for create/update views, please send another email to the list, so that we know we've hit a stable API to write documentation against. -justin -- You received this message because you are