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 <russ...@keith-magee.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 2:00 AM, legutierr <leguti...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Oct 17, 11:58 am, Russell Keith-Magee <russ...@keith-magee.com> > > 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, etc etc. > > >> Yours, > >> Russ Magee %-) > > > If it is too late for this, then just disregard, but I do have one > > slight observation about the TemplateMixin. Might it be a good idea > > to encourage alternate response mixins (JSONResponseMixin, etc.) > > implemented by the community to implement and use get_response() and > > get_context_instance() methods? If so, would it be a good idea to > > implement a BaseResponseMixin that implements those methods, as well > > as a `render_to_response` that raises NotImplementedError, that could > > be subclassed? > > > This seems like a relatively inconsequential thing, but I thought I'd > > just put it out there. Without it, I think the tendency would be for > > alternate response mixins not to contain either of these methods > > (which seem like useful hooks), or to just copy and paste what's > > there. > > I contemplated this after looking at your bitbucket fork, but decided > against it. The ResponseMixin in your branch contains three methods: > > * render_to_response() -- which must be overridden > * get_context_instance() -- which is of arguable utility in the general case > * get_response() -- which will probably need to be overridden in most > subclassing cases to provide a default content type. > > Given that the only three methods in that mixin are either not > necessary or will need to be overridden, I decided that > reimplementation would ultimately make more sense. If this were Java > and types mattered, having the common base class might make sense, but > Python is fine about ducks, so we might as well exploit that fact. > > 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 > JSON responses as way to point out why template rendering has been > factored out in the way that it has. > > Yours, > Russ Magee %-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
