On 13 kwi 2013, at 23:48, Brantley Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
> It would be extremely easy to implement
Such a statement suggests that the you didn't really think the problem through.
Few things are "extremely easy to implement", especially in a framework with
years of legacy projects in the wild.
> and would lead to vastly better code across new projects, including a simpler
> way of writing rest style interfaces:
>
> url('^objects/$', 'views.create_object', methods=['post', 'put'],
> name='create_object'),
> url('^objects/$', 'views.get_objects', name='list_objects'),
How would you implement a reverse() variant having this functionality in?
Does get_objects respond to DELETE as well?
If create_objects raises Http404, do we continue traversing the urlconf? What
about reverse() in that case?
> I will gladly implement the code required for this, but don't wish to do so
> if it's going to be quashed, which is why I bring it up here.
Often you can find tricky edge cases and other obstacles only through an
implementation effort. Realistically, no-one will agree to merge a
functionality based only on a vague mailing list post. Working code wins
arguments, as they say. Alternatively, a careful up-front design document (this
is what the core Python team does with PEPs).
--
Best regards,
Łukasz Langa
WWW: http://lukasz.langa.pl/
Twitter: @llanga
IRC: ambv on #python-dev
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
