On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 12:43 PM, akaariai <akaar...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 3, 8:56 pm, Tobia Conforto <tobia.confo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I haven't taken the time to translate the whole django.views.generic >> package to this new design, but I will do so shortly, assuming I get >> some kind of positive feedback. The existing functionality (the >> various generic views and mixins) should be fairly easy to port to the >> new design. > > It is very important to make sure that you can support all the > features supported by Django currently. The devil is in the details. > Trying to pass Django's test suite with your version of class based > views is a good way to test if you actually do achieve feature parity. > > I don't know much about class based views, but I do know that their > design thread at django-developers was _very_ long. So, there might be > reason why things are done as they are.
Indeed there were good reasons. The design decisions are documented here: https://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/ClassBasedViews >From first inspection, what is being proposed here was discussed and rejected as a design, for reasons that are covered on the wiki page. For the full details on the discussion, you'll can delve into the mailing list archives, but as Anssi says, those threads are very long. Yours, Russ Magee %-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en.
