On 21.09.2011, at 11:24, Jannis Leidel wrote:
> On 21.09.2011, at 11:14, Tom Christie wrote:
>
>> Heya,
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback. I quite like the explicit 'STATIC_URL' only
>> approach, although I think a lot of users would still run into a problem
>> there, because 'request' isn't also added in explicitly to the Context...
>>
>> For context, my particular use case is a simple '500.html' template, that
>> extends a 'base.html' template. I don't use any other context in the base
>> template other than 'request' and 'STATIC_URL'. In the case of a 500 error,
>> I'd see the template render correctly, except that it'd look like the user
>> isn't logged in. Coming across that as a dev that'd confuse the hell out of
>> me the first time I came across it unless I already understood the 500
>> Context behavior, and it's not ideal from the end-user perspective either.
>>
>> I'd imagine that plenty of other setups would have a similar setup, so you
>> could argue that returning this:
>>
>> Context({'STATIC_URL': settings.STATIC_URL, 'request': request})
>>
>> would be an okay thing to do in the default 500 handler.
>
> Passing STATIC_URL to the 500.html template is not needed anymore
> now that we've added a new {% static %} template tag:
>
> https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/releases/1.4/#static-template-tag
Oh, I forgot to say, there is of course also a non-staticfiles version
of the {% static %} template tag in case you don't use the contrib app
staticfiles:
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/templates/builtins/#static
Jannis
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
