Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
On 11/02/2010 05:27 PM, Mikhail Korobov wrote: I'm quite busy now and don't think I'll be able to make the patch ready by 1.3 alpha 1. Full feature freeze is expected only by the time of beta so I don't think it's absolutely necessary to push it before alpha 1. Anyway since I care very much for the patch I can pick it up if you couldn't find a time to maintain it. Just drop me a line off-list in this case. -- 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
I'm quite busy now and don't think I'll be able to make the patch ready by 1.3 alpha 1. On 2 ноя, 20:06, Mikhail Korobovwrote: > Hi all. > > The new patch is attached to ticket > (seehttp://code.djangoproject.com/attachment/ticket/12816/render_shortcut... > ). Docs are cumbersome (and incomplete), and a couple of middleware > tests are missing. > > 1) Template response middleware is introduced. It is applied only for > response instances that can be baked. > 2) Exception is raised on content access or iteration for unbaked > response. > 3) 'force_bake' method is removed. 'bake' now behaves like old > 'force_bake'. > 4) Test client fixes are no longer needed and they are removed. > 5) Some docs are added. > > Am we in hurry to get 'render' shortcut into 1.3 alpha 1 or it can be > added later? > > On 31 окт, 00:49, Ivan Sagalaev wrote: > > > > > On 10/30/2010 10:47 PM, SmileyChris wrote: > > > > It seems a simple enough proposal that trying to access the content > > > property would raise an error until it is explicitly baked. Problem > > > solved. > > > True. I seem to somehow missed it between the lines. Thanks! I'm +1 on > > it by the way. -- 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
Hi all. The new patch is attached to ticket (see http://code.djangoproject.com/attachment/ticket/12816/render_shortcut.6.diff?format=raw ). Docs are cumbersome (and incomplete), and a couple of middleware tests are missing. 1) Template response middleware is introduced. It is applied only for response instances that can be baked. 2) Exception is raised on content access or iteration for unbaked response. 3) 'force_bake' method is removed. 'bake' now behaves like old 'force_bake'. 4) Test client fixes are no longer needed and they are removed. 5) Some docs are added. Am we in hurry to get 'render' shortcut into 1.3 alpha 1 or it can be added later? On 31 окт, 00:49, Ivan Sagalaevwrote: > On 10/30/2010 10:47 PM, SmileyChris wrote: > > > It seems a simple enough proposal that trying to access the content > > property would raise an error until it is explicitly baked. Problem > > solved. > > True. I seem to somehow missed it between the lines. Thanks! I'm +1 on > it by the way. -- 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
On Oct 29, 2:04 pm, Ivan Sagalaevwrote: > Aha, I see the point now. On a second thought I think we can avoid this > problem altogether by not passing actual response object into > middleware. Instead we could pass just those bits that a middleware > should care about: a template name and a context instance. The > middleware then may (or even must) return new values for those that > would be placed back into the response by the request handler. Seems that a template-response-middleware might reasonably want to look at some other response data (headers? or simply extra annotation attributes?) in order to make decisions about what to do. Carl -- 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
On 10/29/2010 09:58 AM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: I agree that it's important to treat people as grown ups. However, this is something that is trivial to do by accident -- for example, printing response.content would be an obvious debug step -- and it will be a non-trivial thing to identify that this is the cause of your problems. Aha, I see the point now. On a second thought I think we can avoid this problem altogether by not passing actual response object into middleware. Instead we could pass just those bits that a middleware should care about: a template name and a context instance. The middleware then may (or even must) return new values for those that would be placed back into the response by the request handler. Something still bothers me about it, but I can't invent any real objections myself. -- 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
On 29 окт, 10:09, Russell Keith-Mageewrote: > > Ah - I wasn't aware there was a working implementation of this idea -- > did I miss a link somewhere? > No, there is no full working implementation. I'm talking about Ivan's code snippet: response = get_response(...) if hastattr(response, 'force_bake'): # apply template response middleware response.force_bake() # apply normal response middleware === > If any template-response-middleware were to bake the > response, subsequent template-reposnse-middlewares could potentially > have problems, as any changes they make to context etc will be > ignored. Just realized that this is not correct. Changes won't be ignored but the template will be rendered twice. -- 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Ivan Sagalaevwrote: > Russel: >>> >>> Wouldn't it make sense to put a flag on the TemplateResponse >>> that prohibits accidental baking? > > Mikhail: >> >> So maybe it will be better not to make bake/force_bake public so that >> users won't be able to shoot themselves in the foot? > > I don't think it's doable at all. People still can call any method in as > well as they can ignore or alter any protection flag. I believe it's > sufficient to abide to the Python way here, write a proper documentation and > treat people as grown-ups trusting them not to do bad things in their > process_template_response. I agree that it's important to treat people as grown ups. However, this is something that is trivial to do by accident -- for example, printing response.content would be an obvious debug step -- and it will be a non-trivial thing to identify that this is the cause of your problems. Maybe an unconditional exception is a little strong, but some sort of safety catch seems called for. 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
Russel: Wouldn't it make sense to put a flag on the TemplateResponse that prohibits accidental baking? Mikhail: So maybe it will be better not to make bake/force_bake public so that users won't be able to shoot themselves in the foot? I don't think it's doable at all. People still can call any method in as well as they can ignore or alter any protection flag. I believe it's sufficient to abide to the Python way here, write a proper documentation and treat people as grown-ups trusting them not to do bad things in their process_template_response. -- 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
2010/10/29 Mikhail Korobov: > Hi Russel, > > Thank you for your reviews and moving things on! > > On 29 окт, 07:35, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: >> >> I like this idea -- it's is an elegant solution to the problem, and >> avoids all the backwards compatibility issues I can think of. >> >> I have two comments: >> >> Firstly, there needs to be a shortcut for non-template responses. If >> your response isn't a template response, there's no point putting it >> through Template Reponse Middleware. >> > > Ivan's code doesn't put non-template responses through template > response middleware. Whenever the response is a template response is > determined by the presence of 'force_bake' method. Ah - I wasn't aware there was a working implementation of this idea -- did I miss a link somewhere? >> Secondly, it seems to me like there may be some need for baking >> protection here. If any template-response-middleware were to bake the >> response, subsequent template-reposnse-middlewares could potentially >> have problems, as any changes they make to context etc will be >> ignored. Wouldn't it make sense to put a flag on the TemplateResponse >> that prohibits accidental baking? That way the force_bake() that >> happens between the template-response-middleware and the normal >> response-middleware would be the guaranteed point at which the >> template is writ large as content. >> > > As I can see, users shouldn't bake responses not only in middlewares. > They shouldn't bake responses anywhere in their code. > > The original TemplateResponse idea was not the same. Agreed. This is a change from the original completely-lazy-evaluated TemplateResponse idea, but I think it makes sense in terms of being explicit and avoiding a wealth of potential bugs in implicit evaluation. > So maybe it will be better not to make bake/force_bake public so that > users won't be able to shoot themselves in the foot? And maybe it'll > be better even not to bake response magically on first content > access? That's essentially what I was suggesting -- that if a middleware or decorator accidental accessed response.content before the end of template-context-processor handling (when the explicit baking occurs), it should raise an exception rather than implicitly baking the response. 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
Hi Russel, Thank you for your reviews and moving things on! On 29 окт, 07:35, Russell Keith-Mageewrote: > > I like this idea -- it's is an elegant solution to the problem, and > avoids all the backwards compatibility issues I can think of. > > I have two comments: > > Firstly, there needs to be a shortcut for non-template responses. If > your response isn't a template response, there's no point putting it > through Template Reponse Middleware. > Ivan's code doesn't put non-template responses through template response middleware. Whenever the response is a template response is determined by the presence of 'force_bake' method. > Secondly, it seems to me like there may be some need for baking > protection here. If any template-response-middleware were to bake the > response, subsequent template-reposnse-middlewares could potentially > have problems, as any changes they make to context etc will be > ignored. Wouldn't it make sense to put a flag on the TemplateResponse > that prohibits accidental baking? That way the force_bake() that > happens between the template-response-middleware and the normal > response-middleware would be the guaranteed point at which the > template is writ large as content. > As I can see, users shouldn't bake responses not only in middlewares. They shouldn't bake responses anywhere in their code. The original TemplateResponse idea was not the same. Original TemplateResponse was baked on first content access. Now TemplateResponse should be baked exactly in one place: right after template response middlewares. Other baking points seems to be error- prone with this solution. So maybe it will be better not to make bake/force_bake public so that users won't be able to shoot themselves in the foot? And maybe it'll be better even not to bake response magically on first content access? > Regarding #9886 and #14523 -- they're both RFC, and they're on my todo > list of things to commit in the near future. I just need to find a few > spare moments to give the patches a final review and commit. > > Yours, > Russ Magee %-) That's great! -- 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Ivan Sagalaevwrote: > On 10/27/2010 04:55 PM, Mikhail Korobov wrote: >> >> 1. 'Border' middleware is a backwards-compatible change, the >> requirement to bake response in middleware isn't. >> >> The >> difference is only that you propose to execute 'bake' in the end of >> response cycle and I propose to execute it at the beginning of the >> response cycle but to make this customizable (by changing the position >> of the BakingMiddleware). > > I understand your points now, thanks. Two things bother me about 'border' > middleware: > > - its semantics is a bit different than that of others middleware in the > list in settings and this difference is not explicitly clear when looking at > the list > > - it's bad to have a boilerplate code that people just have to put somewhere > > I've spent a night with a thought and now I think I can propose even better > solution. > > We can introduce a new kind of middleware — "template response middleware" > for lack of a better name. A user who wants to do something with a template > response *before* it is baked has to write a middleware like this: > > class ContextInjectionMiddleware: > def process_template_response(self, request, response): > # do something with response > > Request handling code would look like this then: > > response = get_response(...) > > if hastattr(response, 'force_bake'): > # apply template response middleware > response.force_bake() > > # apply normal response middleware > > This way we: > > - are getting rid of force_bake in HttpResponse where it's a noop > - maintain backward compatibility since response is baked before all > currently written middleware > - require explicitly named method to deal with a new concept > > What's not to like? :-) I like this idea -- it's is an elegant solution to the problem, and avoids all the backwards compatibility issues I can think of. I have two comments: Firstly, there needs to be a shortcut for non-template responses. If your response isn't a template response, there's no point putting it through Template Reponse Middleware. Secondly, it seems to me like there may be some need for baking protection here. If any template-response-middleware were to bake the response, subsequent template-reposnse-middlewares could potentially have problems, as any changes they make to context etc will be ignored. Wouldn't it make sense to put a flag on the TemplateResponse that prohibits accidental baking? That way the force_bake() that happens between the template-response-middleware and the normal response-middleware would be the guaranteed point at which the template is writ large as content. Regarding #9886 and #14523 -- they're both RFC, and they're on my todo list of things to commit in the near future. I just need to find a few spare moments to give the patches a final review and commit. 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
On 10/28/2010 12:24 PM, Mikhail Korobov wrote: The request handling code have to be put into WSGIHandler and into ModPythonHandler so I'll wait until the patch for http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/9886 will be landed. I'd say it's even worth to wait for http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/14523 that moves response middleware application into the base code. -- 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
On 28 окт, 12:55, Ivan Sagalaevwrote: > On 10/27/2010 04:55 PM, Mikhail Korobov wrote: > > > 1. 'Border' middleware is a backwards-compatible change, the > > requirement to bake response in middleware isn't. > > > The > > difference is only that you propose to execute 'bake' in the end of > > response cycle and I propose to execute it at the beginning of the > > response cycle but to make this customizable (by changing the position > > of the BakingMiddleware). > > I understand your points now, thanks. Two things bother me about > 'border' middleware: > > - its semantics is a bit different than that of others middleware in the > list in settings and this difference is not explicitly clear when > looking at the list > > - it's bad to have a boilerplate code that people just have to put somewhere > > I've spent a night with a thought and now I think I can propose even > better solution. > > We can introduce a new kind of middleware -- "template response > middleware" for lack of a better name. A user who wants to do something > with a template response *before* it is baked has to write a middleware > like this: > > class ContextInjectionMiddleware: > def process_template_response(self, request, response): > # do something with response > > Request handling code would look like this then: > > response = get_response(...) > > if hastattr(response, 'force_bake'): > # apply template response middleware > response.force_bake() > > # apply normal response middleware > > This way we: > > - are getting rid of force_bake in HttpResponse where it's a noop > - maintain backward compatibility since response is baked before all > currently written middleware > - require explicitly named method to deal with a new concept > > What's not to like? :-) I like your solution. The request handling code have to be put into WSGIHandler and into ModPythonHandler so I'll wait until the patch for http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/9886 will be landed. -- 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
On 10/27/2010 04:55 PM, Mikhail Korobov wrote: 1. 'Border' middleware is a backwards-compatible change, the requirement to bake response in middleware isn't. The difference is only that you propose to execute 'bake' in the end of response cycle and I propose to execute it at the beginning of the response cycle but to make this customizable (by changing the position of the BakingMiddleware). I understand your points now, thanks. Two things bother me about 'border' middleware: - its semantics is a bit different than that of others middleware in the list in settings and this difference is not explicitly clear when looking at the list - it's bad to have a boilerplate code that people just have to put somewhere I've spent a night with a thought and now I think I can propose even better solution. We can introduce a new kind of middleware — "template response middleware" for lack of a better name. A user who wants to do something with a template response *before* it is baked has to write a middleware like this: class ContextInjectionMiddleware: def process_template_response(self, request, response): # do something with response Request handling code would look like this then: response = get_response(...) if hastattr(response, 'force_bake'): # apply template response middleware response.force_bake() # apply normal response middleware This way we: - are getting rid of force_bake in HttpResponse where it's a noop - maintain backward compatibility since response is baked before all currently written middleware - require explicitly named method to deal with a new concept What's not to like? :-) -- 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
Hmm, and now I don's see a use case for the 'force_bake' (and maybe even public 'bake' method) method if BakingMiddleware is implemented. With BakingMiddleware there is exactly one place where response should be baked and user's code shouldn't be calling 'force_bake' and even 'bake' on responses. On 27 окт, 19:55, Mikhail Korobovwrote: > Hi Ivan, > > Let me explain why I prefer 'border' middleware way (that is > implemented) over explicit baking in messages middleware (that was > implemented but then replaced with 'border' middleware). > > 1. 'Border' middleware is a backwards-compatible change, the > requirement to bake response in middleware isn't. > > 2. With BakingMiddleware it is clear what middlewares expect responses > to be baked and what expect responses to be unbaked. This provides > practical benefits. If there is no BakingMiddleware and some > middleware wants to change template or context it must call > 'force_bake' (not just 'bake') to make sure the changes will apply. If > there is an another middleware that want to change something (template > or context) then template will be rendered several times. With > BakingMiddleware the contract is a bit different. Template will be > rendered exactly 1 time in this case because middleware can assume > that the response was not baked. > > 3. The code behind BakingMiddleware should be executed anyway in order > to prevent template rendering outside try-catch statements. The > difference is only that you propose to execute 'bake' in the end of > response cycle and I propose to execute it at the beginning of the > response cycle but to make this customizable (by changing the position > of the BakingMiddleware). > > On 27 окт, 13:33, Ivan Sagalaev wrote: > > > > > On 10/25/2010 04:33 PM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > > > > * The problem with messages is a big one -- probably even a > > > show-stopper if we can't find a way to reconcile the general use case > > > that it represents (i.e., we don't just need a fix for > > > contrib.messages -- we need to explain how/why the problem exists, > > > and provide a consistent approach for analogous problems) > > > I apologize in advance if I missed some important bits of the > > conversation I'm on vacation right now :-). > > > Why can't we teach messages middleware to just explicitly bake a > > response and call it a proper solution? By adding `force_bake` to the > > HttpResponse class itself we effectively declare that *any* HttpResponse > > can be lazy and middleware that expects some side-effects from a > > response has to bake it. > > > Sure it must be documented that middleware forcing response baking > > should work after the ones that don't. -- 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
Hi Ivan, Let me explain why I prefer 'border' middleware way (that is implemented) over explicit baking in messages middleware (that was implemented but then replaced with 'border' middleware). 1. 'Border' middleware is a backwards-compatible change, the requirement to bake response in middleware isn't. 2. With BakingMiddleware it is clear what middlewares expect responses to be baked and what expect responses to be unbaked. This provides practical benefits. If there is no BakingMiddleware and some middleware wants to change template or context it must call 'force_bake' (not just 'bake') to make sure the changes will apply. If there is an another middleware that want to change something (template or context) then template will be rendered several times. With BakingMiddleware the contract is a bit different. Template will be rendered exactly 1 time in this case because middleware can assume that the response was not baked. 3. The code behind BakingMiddleware should be executed anyway in order to prevent template rendering outside try-catch statements. The difference is only that you propose to execute 'bake' in the end of response cycle and I propose to execute it at the beginning of the response cycle but to make this customizable (by changing the position of the BakingMiddleware). On 27 окт, 13:33, Ivan Sagalaevwrote: > On 10/25/2010 04:33 PM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > > > * The problem with messages is a big one -- probably even a > > show-stopper if we can't find a way to reconcile the general use case > > that it represents (i.e., we don't just need a fix for > > contrib.messages -- we need to explain how/why the problem exists, > > and provide a consistent approach for analogous problems) > > I apologize in advance if I missed some important bits of the > conversation I'm on vacation right now :-). > > Why can't we teach messages middleware to just explicitly bake a > response and call it a proper solution? By adding `force_bake` to the > HttpResponse class itself we effectively declare that *any* HttpResponse > can be lazy and middleware that expects some side-effects from a > response has to bake it. > > Sure it must be documented that middleware forcing response baking > should work after the ones that don't. -- 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
On 10/25/2010 04:33 PM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: * The problem with messages is a big one -- probably even a show-stopper if we can't find a way to reconcile the general use case that it represents (i.e., we don't just need a fix for contrib.messages -- we need to explain how/why the problem exists, and provide a consistent approach for analogous problems) I apologize in advance if I missed some important bits of the conversation — I'm on vacation right now :-). Why can't we teach messages middleware to just explicitly bake a response and call it a proper solution? By adding `force_bake` to the HttpResponse class itself we effectively declare that *any* HttpResponse can be lazy and middleware that expects some side-effects from a response has to bake it. Sure it must be documented that middleware forcing response baking should work after the ones that don't. -- 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
I propose the following solution for middleware problem: 1. Introduce the BakingMiddleware (django.template.response.BakingMiddleware or django.template.middleware.BakingMiddleware?). This middleware bakes the response using .bake() method. 2. Put this middleware as last middleware in default settings.py (with a blank line above). 3. The ugly bit: if there is no BakingMiddleware in settings.MIDDLEWARE_CLASSES then assume that it is the last middleware. django.core.handlers.base.BaseHandler should be patched for that. Warning may also be emitted if there is no explicit BakingMiddleware in settings.py so that this ugly bit can be removed in future. 4. raise ImproperlyConfigured exception if unbaked response is received by messages middleware This way changes will be backwards-compatible on middleware level because middlewares will only receive baked responses by default. No existing middlewares make use of TemplateResponse and things will work as usual with default setup. Cool new response middlewares that makes use of TemplateResponse (e.g. do some caching or paginating on context objects) can be put after the BakingMiddleware so they will be able mess with an unbaked response if it is available. Implementation (no tests and docs): http://bitbucket.org/kmike/django/changeset/68571aa0e5a3 On 25 окт, 20:36, Mikhail Korobovwrote: > contrib.messages middleware was broken because it relies on something > that should happen on template rendering (iteration over the messages > in this case) and don't access response content directly. > > I was about to introduce 'BakingMiddleware' - the middleware that > bakes the response explicitly. It can be a border between middlewares > with rendered templates as requirement and middlewares without this > requirement. But we can't inject this middleware in backwards- > compatible way to user's code so I just fixed the contrib.messages > middleware. I still like the idea but don't know if we can afford 'add > BakingMiddleware before the MessagesMiddleware' note in upgrade docs. > > This is all quite similar to problems django have with streaming http > responses > (seehttp://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/browse_thread/thread...) > and maybe there are some ideas from that thread which may be useful. > > On 25 окт, 19:33, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > > > > > 2010/10/25 Mikhail Korobov : > > > > Sorry for massive email spam on this list :) > > > > I came up with even more naive implementation of > > > TemplateResponseMixin:http://bitbucket.org/kmike/django/src/a3e242ca7b4b/django/views/gener... > > > > response.template_name will contain a list of names and there is > > > (almost) no code duplication between TemplateResponse and > > > TemplateResponseMixin with this implementation. Custom template > > > loading and context instantiation go to TemplateResponse subclasses. > > > This is starting to look good to me; here are some comments, going > > back a couple of messages: > > > * Yes, you've got the right idea with regards to the role played by > > the various TemplateResponseMixin methods > > > * It seems reasonable to me that assertTemplateUsed would require > > some baking, and yes, that should be happening at the test client > > before template rendering signals are disconnected. > > > * The problem with messages is a big one -- probably even a > > show-stopper if we can't find a way to reconcile the general use case > > that it represents (i.e., we don't just need a fix for > > contrib.messages -- we need to explain how/why the problem exists, > > and provide a consistent approach for analogous problems) > > > * Following the convention of the rest of the API, the call to > > get_template_names() should be internal to get_response(), not passed > > in as an argument. > > > * I'm not entirely convinced that get_response() is needed now. As > > your implementation currently stands, render_to_response() is just a > > call to get_response() -- which suggests that the extra level of > > indirection isn't needed. > > > Backing up this position -- most of the flexibility that > > TemplateResponseMixin has is to enable the easy integration of > > different rendering engines and contexts; those API points are now > > provided by TemplateResponse, so there isn't any need to preserve them > > in the mixin. If you want to use a different loader, template > > renderer, context instance, etc, you subclass TemplateResponse. > > > So - revised source code: > > > class TemplateResponseMixin(object): > > """ > > A mixin that can be used to render a template. > > """ > > template_name = None > > template_response_class = TemplateResponse > > > def render_to_response(self, context): > > """ > > Returns a response with a template rendered with the given context. > > """ > > return self.template_response_class( > >
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
contrib.messages middleware was broken because it relies on something that should happen on template rendering (iteration over the messages in this case) and don't access response content directly. I was about to introduce 'BakingMiddleware' - the middleware that bakes the response explicitly. It can be a border between middlewares with rendered templates as requirement and middlewares without this requirement. But we can't inject this middleware in backwards- compatible way to user's code so I just fixed the contrib.messages middleware. I still like the idea but don't know if we can afford 'add BakingMiddleware before the MessagesMiddleware' note in upgrade docs. This is all quite similar to problems django have with streaming http responses (see http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/browse_thread/thread/9dc1bb93eed77987/c61c1b8d5426c1cb?lnk=gst=http+content#c61c1b8d5426c1cb) and maybe there are some ideas from that thread which may be useful. On 25 окт, 19:33, Russell Keith-Mageewrote: > 2010/10/25 Mikhail Korobov : > > > Sorry for massive email spam on this list :) > > > I came up with even more naive implementation of > > TemplateResponseMixin:http://bitbucket.org/kmike/django/src/a3e242ca7b4b/django/views/gener... > > > response.template_name will contain a list of names and there is > > (almost) no code duplication between TemplateResponse and > > TemplateResponseMixin with this implementation. Custom template > > loading and context instantiation go to TemplateResponse subclasses. > > This is starting to look good to me; here are some comments, going > back a couple of messages: > > * Yes, you've got the right idea with regards to the role played by > the various TemplateResponseMixin methods > > * It seems reasonable to me that assertTemplateUsed would require > some baking, and yes, that should be happening at the test client > before template rendering signals are disconnected. > > * The problem with messages is a big one -- probably even a > show-stopper if we can't find a way to reconcile the general use case > that it represents (i.e., we don't just need a fix for > contrib.messages -- we need to explain how/why the problem exists, > and provide a consistent approach for analogous problems) > > * Following the convention of the rest of the API, the call to > get_template_names() should be internal to get_response(), not passed > in as an argument. > > * I'm not entirely convinced that get_response() is needed now. As > your implementation currently stands, render_to_response() is just a > call to get_response() -- which suggests that the extra level of > indirection isn't needed. > > Backing up this position -- most of the flexibility that > TemplateResponseMixin has is to enable the easy integration of > different rendering engines and contexts; those API points are now > provided by TemplateResponse, so there isn't any need to preserve them > in the mixin. If you want to use a different loader, template > renderer, context instance, etc, you subclass TemplateResponse. > > So - revised source code: > > class TemplateResponseMixin(object): > """ > A mixin that can be used to render a template. > """ > template_name = None > template_response_class = TemplateResponse > > def render_to_response(self, context): > """ > Returns a response with a template rendered with the given context. > """ > return self.template_response_class( > request=self.request, > template=self.get_template_names(), > context=context, > **response_kwargs > ) > > def get_template_names(self): > """ > Returns a list of template names to be used for the request. Must > return > a list. May not be called if render_to_response is overridden. > """ > if self.template_name is None: > return [] > else: > return [self.template_name] > > However, all this is a moot point if we can't find a fix for the > contrib.messages problem. > > 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
Sorry for massive email spam on this list :) I came up with even more naive implementation of TemplateResponseMixin: http://bitbucket.org/kmike/django/src/a3e242ca7b4b/django/views/generic/base.py#cl-87 response.template_name will contain a list of names and there is (almost) no code duplication between TemplateResponse and TemplateResponseMixin with this implementation. Custom template loading and context instantiation go to TemplateResponse subclasses. On 24 окт, 17:32, Mikhail Korobovwrote: > new changes (integration with generic views, test client and messages > middleware fixes):http://bitbucket.org/kmike/django/overview > > Yet another gotchas: > > - response.template_name for generic views will contain Template > instance, not template names, so response.template_name is quite > misleading. The better name ('template') is already taken by test > client (but it is deprecated in 1.3). I can't find a good solution so > leave the 'template_name' for now. > > - hasattr(response, 'bake') and callable(response.bake) checks are > ugly. The alternative is to provide HttpResponse.bake method but this > way HttpResponse will be aware of TemplateResponse and it doesn't seem > clean for me. > > On 24 окт, 02:14, Mikhail Korobov wrote: > > > > > Yes, you're right and I was wrong, the messages middleware doesn't > > return response as-is. I'll take a look. > > > As for tests, response.context and response.templates are not > > available for TemplateResponse instances before they are baked so test > > client should be patched to explicitly bake the response. There is > > response.template_context and response.template_name but their > > semantics differ. > > > On 24 окт, 01:52, SmileyChris wrote: > > > > The points were just off the top of my head from memory, when I get > > > back to work I'll have a look to see what the actual cases are. > > > > Regarding the messages middleware, I *know* there's a problem. A > > > message won't be marked as "read", since the template hasn't iterated > > > the messages object by the time the middleware is triggered > > > > On Oct 23, 8:35 am, Mikhail Korobov wrote: > > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > > I don't see anything harmful neither in > > > > django.contrib.messages.middleware.MessageMiddleware nor in > > > > django.test.testcases.assertContains. > > > > Messages middleware passes response as-is and assertContains reads > > > > 'content' attribute and thus forces the baking. > > > > > at lest the following test case forks fine for me: > > > > > class AssertTestCase(TestCase): > > > > def test_assert_contains(self): > > > > request = RequestFactory().get('/') > > > > template = Template('foo') > > > > response = TemplateResponse(request, template) > > > > self.assertContains(response, 'oo') > > > > > Can you please provide more details? > > > > > On 23 окт, 00:21, SmileyChris wrote: > > > > > > In my use of TemplateResponse in a real project, we encountered two > > > > > gotchas that I can think of off the top of my head: > > > > > > 1. You need to explicitly bake the response if you are testing using > > > > > assertContains > > > > > 2. You need to explicitly bake the response before the > > > > > contrib.messages middleware > > > > > > On Oct 23, 1:32 am, Russell Keith-Magee > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Mikhail Korobov > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Russell's comments were helpful in discovering the edge case. > > > > > > > _set_content behaves differently for baked and non-baked > > > > > > > responses: > > > > > > > > response = render(request, Template('foo')) > > > > > > > response.content = 'bar' > > > > > > > print response.content # 'foo' > > > > > > > response.content = 'baz' > > > > > > > print response.content # 'baz' > > > > > > > > This is confusing so I think responses should be marked as baked > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > _set_content, not in force_bake. > > > > > > > > The patch that should resolve this concern and Russell's concerns > > > > > > > regarding the > > > > > > > tests:http://bitbucket.org/kmike/django/changeset/00f8be464749 > > > > > > > > I'll take a look at docs and generic views integration later. > > > > > > > > Should new generic views return TemplateResponse by default? > > > > > > > I would have thought so. Is there a compelling reason why CBV's > > > > > > shouldn't return a TemplateResponse? > > > > > > > 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
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
new changes (integration with generic views, test client and messages middleware fixes): http://bitbucket.org/kmike/django/overview Yet another gotchas: - response.template_name for generic views will contain Template instance, not template names, so response.template_name is quite misleading. The better name ('template') is already taken by test client (but it is deprecated in 1.3). I can't find a good solution so leave the 'template_name' for now. - hasattr(response, 'bake') and callable(response.bake) checks are ugly. The alternative is to provide HttpResponse.bake method but this way HttpResponse will be aware of TemplateResponse and it doesn't seem clean for me. On 24 окт, 02:14, Mikhail Korobovwrote: > Yes, you're right and I was wrong, the messages middleware doesn't > return response as-is. I'll take a look. > > As for tests, response.context and response.templates are not > available for TemplateResponse instances before they are baked so test > client should be patched to explicitly bake the response. There is > response.template_context and response.template_name but their > semantics differ. > > On 24 окт, 01:52, SmileyChris wrote: > > > > > The points were just off the top of my head from memory, when I get > > back to work I'll have a look to see what the actual cases are. > > > Regarding the messages middleware, I *know* there's a problem. A > > message won't be marked as "read", since the template hasn't iterated > > the messages object by the time the middleware is triggered > > > On Oct 23, 8:35 am, Mikhail Korobov wrote: > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > I don't see anything harmful neither in > > > django.contrib.messages.middleware.MessageMiddleware nor in > > > django.test.testcases.assertContains. > > > Messages middleware passes response as-is and assertContains reads > > > 'content' attribute and thus forces the baking. > > > > at lest the following test case forks fine for me: > > > > class AssertTestCase(TestCase): > > > def test_assert_contains(self): > > > request = RequestFactory().get('/') > > > template = Template('foo') > > > response = TemplateResponse(request, template) > > > self.assertContains(response, 'oo') > > > > Can you please provide more details? > > > > On 23 окт, 00:21, SmileyChris wrote: > > > > > In my use of TemplateResponse in a real project, we encountered two > > > > gotchas that I can think of off the top of my head: > > > > > 1. You need to explicitly bake the response if you are testing using > > > > assertContains > > > > 2. You need to explicitly bake the response before the > > > > contrib.messages middleware > > > > > On Oct 23, 1:32 am, Russell Keith-Magee > > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Mikhail Korobov > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Russell's comments were helpful in discovering the edge case. > > > > > > _set_content behaves differently for baked and non-baked responses: > > > > > > > response = render(request, Template('foo')) > > > > > > response.content = 'bar' > > > > > > print response.content # 'foo' > > > > > > response.content = 'baz' > > > > > > print response.content # 'baz' > > > > > > > This is confusing so I think responses should be marked as baked in > > > > > > _set_content, not in force_bake. > > > > > > > The patch that should resolve this concern and Russell's concerns > > > > > > regarding the > > > > > > tests:http://bitbucket.org/kmike/django/changeset/00f8be464749 > > > > > > > I'll take a look at docs and generic views integration later. > > > > > > > Should new generic views return TemplateResponse by default? > > > > > > I would have thought so. Is there a compelling reason why CBV's > > > > > shouldn't return a TemplateResponse? > > > > > > 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
Yes, you're right and I was wrong, the messages middleware doesn't return response as-is. I'll take a look. As for tests, response.context and response.templates are not available for TemplateResponse instances before they are baked so test client should be patched to explicitly bake the response. There is response.template_context and response.template_name but their semantics differ. On 24 окт, 01:52, SmileyChriswrote: > The points were just off the top of my head from memory, when I get > back to work I'll have a look to see what the actual cases are. > > Regarding the messages middleware, I *know* there's a problem. A > message won't be marked as "read", since the template hasn't iterated > the messages object by the time the middleware is triggered > > On Oct 23, 8:35 am, Mikhail Korobov wrote: > > > > > Hi Chris, > > > I don't see anything harmful neither in > > django.contrib.messages.middleware.MessageMiddleware nor in > > django.test.testcases.assertContains. > > Messages middleware passes response as-is and assertContains reads > > 'content' attribute and thus forces the baking. > > > at lest the following test case forks fine for me: > > > class AssertTestCase(TestCase): > > def test_assert_contains(self): > > request = RequestFactory().get('/') > > template = Template('foo') > > response = TemplateResponse(request, template) > > self.assertContains(response, 'oo') > > > Can you please provide more details? > > > On 23 окт, 00:21, SmileyChris wrote: > > > > In my use of TemplateResponse in a real project, we encountered two > > > gotchas that I can think of off the top of my head: > > > > 1. You need to explicitly bake the response if you are testing using > > > assertContains > > > 2. You need to explicitly bake the response before the > > > contrib.messages middleware > > > > On Oct 23, 1:32 am, Russell Keith-Magee > > > wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Mikhail Korobov > > > > wrote: > > > > > Russell's comments were helpful in discovering the edge case. > > > > > _set_content behaves differently for baked and non-baked responses: > > > > > > response = render(request, Template('foo')) > > > > > response.content = 'bar' > > > > > print response.content # 'foo' > > > > > response.content = 'baz' > > > > > print response.content # 'baz' > > > > > > This is confusing so I think responses should be marked as baked in > > > > > _set_content, not in force_bake. > > > > > > The patch that should resolve this concern and Russell's concerns > > > > > regarding the > > > > > tests:http://bitbucket.org/kmike/django/changeset/00f8be464749 > > > > > > I'll take a look at docs and generic views integration later. > > > > > > Should new generic views return TemplateResponse by default? > > > > > I would have thought so. Is there a compelling reason why CBV's > > > > shouldn't return a TemplateResponse? > > > > > 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
Hi all again! I've done some research on generic views integration and think that TemplateResponseMixin should be refactored in order to use TemplateResponse (SimpleTemplateResponse actually) because it currently assumes that template must be rendered before the response is returned. 'render_template' hook doesn't fit lazy-rendered responses and 'get_response' == 'render_to_response' if there is no 'render_template' hook. I propose to eliminate 'get_response' and 'render_template' hooks. These hooks are not used by django itself. get_response's purpose was to make it easy to override response class. Because render_to_response now returns response itself it is natural to override render_to_response instead of get_response. render_template's purpose was to change a way template is rendered. I don't know what is the exact use case. If one wants to use e.g. jinja2 template engine then he should override get_template method so it will return jinja.Template instead of django.Template (both have a 'render' method). Am I understand their purposes properly? Anyway, one can override render_to_response hook and return any HttpResponse subclass using any template rendering logic. Here is a chart to make things clear: http://www.lucidchart.com/publicSegments/view/4cc313b1-9478-4985-9870-2a190afcbe04 Some other gotchas: - TemplateResponseMixin.render_to_response should possibly be renamed to 'TemplateResponseMixin.render' for consistency. - django.test.TestCase.assertTemplateUsed should possibly bake the response explicitly because TemplateResponses are lazy. I need core developers' blessing. -- 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
On 22 окт, 18:10, Łukasz Rekuckiwrote: > On 22 October 2010 03:59, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > > 2010/10/21 Łukasz Rekucki : > >> Both render_to_response() and direct_to_template() have one very > >> annoying flaw:http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/12669. Please add > >> a "response_class" keyword to your render() function ;). Thanks! > > > Is this addressed by the status_code argument to TemplateResponse? i.e., > > > return TemplateResponse(request, template, context, status_code=403) > > > We could also include some constants to make things a little prettier: > > > return TemplateResponse(request, template, context, status_code=FORBIDDEN) > > > Would that satisfy your use case for #12669? > > Yes, it does, but constants are a must have, imho. > I think we shouldn't include constants in django itself because they are already available: >>> import httplib >>> httplib.FORBIDDEN 403 -- 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
Hi Chris, I don't see anything harmful neither in django.contrib.messages.middleware.MessageMiddleware nor in django.test.testcases.assertContains. Messages middleware passes response as-is and assertContains reads 'content' attribute and thus forces the baking. at lest the following test case forks fine for me: class AssertTestCase(TestCase): def test_assert_contains(self): request = RequestFactory().get('/') template = Template('foo') response = TemplateResponse(request, template) self.assertContains(response, 'oo') Can you please provide more details? On 23 окт, 00:21, SmileyChriswrote: > In my use of TemplateResponse in a real project, we encountered two > gotchas that I can think of off the top of my head: > > 1. You need to explicitly bake the response if you are testing using > assertContains > 2. You need to explicitly bake the response before the > contrib.messages middleware > > On Oct 23, 1:32 am, Russell Keith-Magee > wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Mikhail Korobov > > wrote: > > > Russell's comments were helpful in discovering the edge case. > > > _set_content behaves differently for baked and non-baked responses: > > > > response = render(request, Template('foo')) > > > response.content = 'bar' > > > print response.content # 'foo' > > > response.content = 'baz' > > > print response.content # 'baz' > > > > This is confusing so I think responses should be marked as baked in > > > _set_content, not in force_bake. > > > > The patch that should resolve this concern and Russell's concerns > > > regarding the > > > tests:http://bitbucket.org/kmike/django/changeset/00f8be464749 > > > > I'll take a look at docs and generic views integration later. > > > > Should new generic views return TemplateResponse by default? > > > I would have thought so. Is there a compelling reason why CBV's > > shouldn't return a TemplateResponse? > > > 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Mikhail Korobovwrote: > Russell's comments were helpful in discovering the edge case. > _set_content behaves differently for baked and non-baked responses: > > response = render(request, Template('foo')) > response.content = 'bar' > print response.content # 'foo' > response.content = 'baz' > print response.content # 'baz' > > This is confusing so I think responses should be marked as baked in > _set_content, not in force_bake. > > The patch that should resolve this concern and Russell's concerns > regarding the tests: http://bitbucket.org/kmike/django/changeset/00f8be464749 > > I'll take a look at docs and generic views integration later. > > Should new generic views return TemplateResponse by default? I would have thought so. Is there a compelling reason why CBV's shouldn't return a TemplateResponse? 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
Hi Russel, On 10/22/2010 05:20 AM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: Jacob has already marked #9886 RFC, and on first inspection, the patch looks good to me too; I want to have a closer look before I commit, though. If you want to proceed assuming that #9886 will be committed (i.e., make the fix for #14523 have #9866 as a prerequisite), I doubt it would be wasted effort. I didn't feel it would be wasted :-). I was going to start doing the new patch on top of my local bzr branch with #9886 applied (arent' DVCSes awesome?). What I meant is that I didn't want to actually attach a diff file to the ticket yet because it has chances of not being applicable against trunk. Regarding the second problem you describe -- unless I'm mistaken, Simon's TemplateResponse addresses this with his "baking" concept; a response is baked the first time it is iterated or otherwise evaluated. The problem is that this iteration may (and does) happen after response is returned from the handler — and hence outside the `try .. except`. The point is to call baking explicitly right before the return. -- 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
2010/10/21 Łukasz Rekucki: > On 20 October 2010 21:57, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: >> 2010/10/20 Mikhail Korobov : >>> There is an unresolved question in the ticket: "The only hesitation is >>> the relationship with #12815; we should resolve that decision before >>> committing anything for this ticket." >>> >>> #12815 is about introducing TemplateResponse. Is the patch with >>> 'render' shortcut returning just HttpResponse acceptable? I think that >>> TemplateResponse is less useful after class-based views make their way >>> into trunk so 'render' shortcut shouldn't bother returning >>> TemplateResponse. There are ways to reuse view logic (and change view >>> context in particular) now and TemplateResponse (which was a good >>> addition to django 1.2/1.1/1.0) seems to only complicate things in >>> django 1.3. >> >> I agree completely with this reasoning - just render returning an >> HttpResponse is fine, I think. > > Both render_to_response() and direct_to_template() have one very > annoying flaw: http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/12669. Please add > a "response_class" keyword to your render() function ;). Thanks! Is this addressed by the status_code argument to TemplateResponse? i.e., return TemplateResponse(request, template, context, status_code=403) We could also include some constants to make things a little prettier: return TemplateResponse(request, template, context, status_code=FORBIDDEN) Would that satisfy your use case for #12669? 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Mikhail Korobovwrote: > Patch is ready for review: > http://bitbucket.org/kmike/django/changeset/37d977574923 > > This is the TempleteResponse by Simon Willison with tests and minor > tweaks. > > Notes: > > - TemplateResponse and SimpleTemplateResponse reside in > django.template.response > - django/shortcuts/__init__.py used to have extra spaces. They are > removed. > - *args and **kwargs in TemplateResponse and SimpleTemplateResponse > are gone in order to provide more help for IDEs > - 'content' argument is not allowed for TemplateResponse and > SimpleTemplateResponse now > - context can be omitted now, the only required argument for > SimpleTemplateResponse is the template; request and template are > required for TemplateResponse > - 'response_class' is not implemented but the status code can be > passed as 'status' parameter. > - _set_content doesn't return a value now This is starting to look quite good. Some quick review comments: * Integration with generic views. I would have thought that TemplateResponseMixin would be a natural place to be using a TemplateResponse. * Tests can't rely on assumed context processors, as the comment in the TemplateResponse tests states. See the flatpages views tests for an example of how to work around this sort of problem. * MOAR TESTS!1!! :-) There are a couple of API points that aren't tested, such as set_content(), force_bake() and iteration over content as a baking trigger. There might be a couple of others; these are just the ones that jumped out at me. * Docs! I appreciate that writing docs is premature when we're still fiddling with details, but I think the core API is getting close, so now would be a good time to at least put in some stub documentation indicating what needs to be filled out later. Yours, Russ Magee %-) 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 12:34 AM, Ivan Sagalaevwrote: > On 10/21/2010 03:22 PM, Ivan Sagalaev wrote: >> >> On 10/21/2010 11:49 AM, Mikhail Korobov wrote: >>> >>> 2. Does TemplateResponse allow pretty exception pages or not? Is Ben's >>> issue resolved? >> >> I'll look into it this evening (MSD). > > So I did. > > There are actually two problems: > > - Exceptions in response middleware are indeed happen outside of the > request's `try .. except` block. This is a problem by itself[1] and I'd be > happy to fix it after ticket 9886[2] is committed. It's another refactoring > of core request code so I don't want to mess things up doing one patch on > top of another :-). > > - Non-pretty plain text tracebacks can be caused not only be middleware but > also by any error occurring during template rendering. Because all this > happen *after* request was returned to the web server handler and is being > iterated over. > > This second problem can be easily fixed by introducing a method for explicit > evaluation of the content: `evaluate()` or `force_content()` that will be a > noop for any HttpRespone class except the TemplateResponse. The method will > be called by the request handler right before returning the response. > > Sounds good? Hi Ivan and Mikhail, Just so you don't get the feeling that you're just discussing this between yourselves -- I'm historically on record of being in favor of the render() shortcut and the TemplateResponse(), and my position hasn't changed recently. This is exactly the sort of problem that I want to target for 1.3 (especially since we're now tracking 6 closely related tickets -- #9081, #9886, #12815, #12816, #12669 and #14523 -- making this a sweet spot for attention). Jacob has already marked #9886 RFC, and on first inspection, the patch looks good to me too; I want to have a closer look before I commit, though. If you want to proceed assuming that #9886 will be committed (i.e., make the fix for #14523 have #9866 as a prerequisite), I doubt it would be wasted effort. Regarding the second problem you describe -- unless I'm mistaken, Simon's TemplateResponse addresses this with his "baking" concept; a response is baked the first time it is iterated or otherwise evaluated. I have a couple of non-Django things to attend to over the next week or so; but once those are sorted out, I should be able to take a detailed look at any patches you have prepared. 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
Patch is ready for review: http://bitbucket.org/kmike/django/changeset/37d977574923 This is the TempleteResponse by Simon Willison with tests and minor tweaks. Notes: - TemplateResponse and SimpleTemplateResponse reside in django.template.response - django/shortcuts/__init__.py used to have extra spaces. They are removed. - *args and **kwargs in TemplateResponse and SimpleTemplateResponse are gone in order to provide more help for IDEs - 'content' argument is not allowed for TemplateResponse and SimpleTemplateResponse now - context can be omitted now, the only required argument for SimpleTemplateResponse is the template; request and template are required for TemplateResponse - 'response_class' is not implemented but the status code can be passed as 'status' parameter. - _set_content doesn't return a value now The result: from django.shortcuts import render def my_view(request): render(request, 'foo.json', {'foo': 'bar'}, 'application/json', 504) def extended_view(request) response = my_view(request) response.template_context.update({'foo': 'spam', 'baz': 'egg'}) response.template_name = 'spam.json' response.status_code = 400 return response On 21 окт, 23:56, Mikhail Korobovwrote: > I love programming: two-liner shortcut turns to be a massive core > refactoring ;) Ivan, thank you for the research. > > I'll provide a draft patch for 'render == TemplateResponse' soon. > > By the way, Łukasz Rekucki's suggestion to add the 'response_class' to > render shortcut is complicated much by TemplateResponse because > SimpleTemplateResponse is inherited from HttpResponse. > > On 21 окт, 22:34, Ivan Sagalaev wrote: > > > > > On 10/21/2010 03:22 PM, Ivan Sagalaev wrote: > > > > On 10/21/2010 11:49 AM, Mikhail Korobov wrote: > > >> 2. Does TemplateResponse allow pretty exception pages or not? Is Ben's > > >> issue resolved? > > > > I'll look into it this evening (MSD). > > > So I did. > > > There are actually two problems: > > > - Exceptions in response middleware are indeed happen outside of the > > request's `try .. except` block. This is a problem by itself[1] and I'd > > be happy to fix it after ticket 9886[2] is committed. It's another > > refactoring of core request code so I don't want to mess things up doing > > one patch on top of another :-). > > > - Non-pretty plain text tracebacks can be caused not only be middleware > > but also by any error occurring during template rendering. Because all > > this happen *after* request was returned to the web server handler and > > is being iterated over. > > > This second problem can be easily fixed by introducing a method for > > explicit evaluation of the content: `evaluate()` or `force_content()` > > that will be a noop for any HttpRespone class except the > > TemplateResponse. The method will be called by the request handler right > > before returning the response. > > > Sounds good? > > > P.S. BTW looking at the TemplateResponse implementation I see that Simon > > had actually intended it to be effectively *the* render shortcut[3]. I > > find it quite beautiful really :-) > > > [1]:http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/14523 > > [2]:http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/9886 > > [3]:http://github.com/simonw/django-openid/blob/master/django_openid/resp... -- 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
On 10/21/2010 03:22 PM, Ivan Sagalaev wrote: On 10/21/2010 11:49 AM, Mikhail Korobov wrote: 2. Does TemplateResponse allow pretty exception pages or not? Is Ben's issue resolved? I'll look into it this evening (MSD). So I did. There are actually two problems: - Exceptions in response middleware are indeed happen outside of the request's `try .. except` block. This is a problem by itself[1] and I'd be happy to fix it after ticket 9886[2] is committed. It's another refactoring of core request code so I don't want to mess things up doing one patch on top of another :-). - Non-pretty plain text tracebacks can be caused not only be middleware but also by any error occurring during template rendering. Because all this happen *after* request was returned to the web server handler and is being iterated over. This second problem can be easily fixed by introducing a method for explicit evaluation of the content: `evaluate()` or `force_content()` that will be a noop for any HttpRespone class except the TemplateResponse. The method will be called by the request handler right before returning the response. Sounds good? P.S. BTW looking at the TemplateResponse implementation I see that Simon had actually intended it to be effectively *the* render shortcut[3]. I find it quite beautiful really :-) [1]: http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/14523 [2]: http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/9886 [3]: http://github.com/simonw/django-openid/blob/master/django_openid/response.py#L85 -- 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
On 10/21/2010 11:49 AM, Mikhail Korobov wrote: 2. Does TemplateResponse allow pretty exception pages or not? Is Ben's issue resolved? I'll look into it this evening (MSD). -- 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
Well, I don't mean that now we all must write only class-based views. I was talking about reusable views and most views don't have to be reusable (though it would be nice). Django now can help developer in writing reusable views and it was not the case when TemplateResponse was invented. That's what I mean with "TemplateResponse is less useful now". TemplateResponse and class-based views are targeting the same problem and they are different ways to solve it. I don't know what is better, the argument was that we already have one way to reuse view logic. My statement about "only complicate things in django 1.3" was premature, sorry. TemplateResponse is indeed a nice way to reuse view logic that don't require writing a class-based view. The ticket in DDN is http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/12815. So now the questions are: 1. Do we need 2 nice ways for reusing view logic (with and without classes)? I don't have an opinion on this. 2. Does TemplateResponse allow pretty exception pages or not? Is Ben's issue resolved? On 21 окт, 13:25, Ivan Sagalaevwrote: > On 10/21/2010 11:10 AM, James Bennett wrote: > > > > > > > Django cares about whether your views meet the following criteria: > > > 1. Is a callable object. > > 2. When called, accepts an instance of HttpRequest as its first > > positional argument. > > 3. When called, returns an instance of HttpResponse or raises an exception. > > > That's it. Write them as functions, if that makes sense for your use > > case. Write them as classes with callable instances, if that makes > > sense for your use case. Generic views are now class-based because > > that's what seems to work best *for the case of generic views*; > > subclassing and overriding is, for the type of flexibility the generic > > views need, simpler and cleaner than supporting long lists of keyword > > arguments. But the generic views are not all views, and not all views > > have to do what the generic views do. So my position is that you > > should think about what you need from your view, and choose > > class-based or function-based as appropriate. > > Thanks, that what I thought. > > Going back to the argument about TemplateResponse I can say that it's a > good way for a view-as-function to keep its response hackable. -- 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
On 10/21/2010 11:10 AM, James Bennett wrote: Django cares about whether your views meet the following criteria: 1. Is a callable object. 2. When called, accepts an instance of HttpRequest as its first positional argument. 3. When called, returns an instance of HttpResponse or raises an exception. That's it. Write them as functions, if that makes sense for your use case. Write them as classes with callable instances, if that makes sense for your use case. Generic views are now class-based because that's what seems to work best *for the case of generic views*; subclassing and overriding is, for the type of flexibility the generic views need, simpler and cleaner than supporting long lists of keyword arguments. But the generic views are not all views, and not all views have to do what the generic views do. So my position is that you should think about what you need from your view, and choose class-based or function-based as appropriate. Thanks, that what I thought. Going back to the argument about TemplateResponse I can say that it's a good way for a view-as-function to keep its response hackable. -- 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Ivan Sagalaevwrote: > Can someone of core committers clarify this: is it now recommended to write > all views as classes? Django cares about whether your views meet the following criteria: 1. Is a callable object. 2. When called, accepts an instance of HttpRequest as its first positional argument. 3. When called, returns an instance of HttpResponse or raises an exception. That's it. Write them as functions, if that makes sense for your use case. Write them as classes with callable instances, if that makes sense for your use case. Generic views are now class-based because that's what seems to work best *for the case of generic views*; subclassing and overriding is, for the type of flexibility the generic views need, simpler and cleaner than supporting long lists of keyword arguments. But the generic views are not all views, and not all views have to do what the generic views do. So my position is that you should think about what you need from your view, and choose class-based or function-based as appropriate. -- "Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct -- the best kind of correct." -- 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
Hi Ivan! On 21 окт, 03:00, Ivan Sagalaevwrote: > > Wait!!! > > Sorry… Hello everyone :-) > > If I remember correctly TemplateResponse was solving a problem of some > middleware wanting to mess with a view context before it's baked into > final string representation. This would solve in a good way what now is > accomplished by things like @render_to decorator. > > What I don't understand from your reasoning is how class-based views are > going to help here? From what I see only Django-supplied generic views > are now class-based and we didn't deprecate simple user view functions. > Which means that "render" won't be as useful for them if it wouldn't > provide any means to post-process the context and if the context won't > be aware of request: these are two main points why people are not happy > with render_to_response right now. > I see this as several separate specific problems / use cases. 1. Developer writes a view and want to reuse it (e.g. change the context). My assumptions was: a) Class based views are now the recommended way to write reusable views b) The main benefit from TemplateResponse is the ability to reuse view responses. I made this assumption because of the example in #12815, the 'this pattern would be particularly valuable for customising the admin' statement and the original example in your proposal ( http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/msg/d5df254f01800ee2 ). c) b) can now be achieved by writing a class-based view 2. Developer wants to write a middleware that messes with view context. Class-based views are not going to help here. But I thought it is not nearly as demanded as the first use case. This is useful but not mandatory. That's where my reasoning came from. > Mikhail, do you have any actual objections against TemplateResponse or > you just don't want to complicate your implementation? If it is the > latter then TemplateResponse has been already implemented[1] by Simon > Willison. You might just use it. > > [1]:http://github.com/simonw/django-openid/blob/master/django_openid/resp... Thanks for pointing out the implemented TemplateResponse. No, I haven't actual objections against it and just don't want to complicate the implementation. There was an issue with TemplateResponse approach for Ben Firshman ( http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/msg/fc9e0f8810d3e784 ) and the ticket is in DDN so it is not as simple as just replace HttpResponse with TemplateResponse. -- 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
On 10/20/2010 11:51 PM, Mikhail Korobov wrote: #12815 is about introducing TemplateResponse. Is the patch with 'render' shortcut returning just HttpResponse acceptable? I think that TemplateResponse is less useful after class-based views make their way into trunk so 'render' shortcut shouldn't bother returning TemplateResponse. There are ways to reuse view logic (and change view context in particular) now and TemplateResponse (which was a good addition to django 1.2/1.1/1.0) seems to only complicate things in django 1.3. Wait!!! Sorry… Hello everyone :-) If I remember correctly TemplateResponse was solving a problem of some middleware wanting to mess with a view context before it's baked into final string representation. This would solve in a good way what now is accomplished by things like @render_to decorator. What I don't understand from your reasoning is how class-based views are going to help here? From what I see only Django-supplied generic views are now class-based and we didn't deprecate simple user view functions. Which means that "render" won't be as useful for them if it wouldn't provide any means to post-process the context and if the context won't be aware of request: these are two main points why people are not happy with render_to_response right now. Mikhail, do you have any actual objections against TemplateResponse or you just don't want to complicate your implementation? If it is the latter then TemplateResponse has been already implemented[1] by Simon Willison. You might just use it. [1]: http://github.com/simonw/django-openid/blob/master/django_openid/response.py -- 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
I think the correct ticket is http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/9081 and it is in 'almost-wontfix' state now. Yes, it's a great time to either move it to wontfix or mark as accepted and implement alongside with the render shortcut. On 21 окт, 02:05, Łukasz Rekuckiwrote: > On 20 October 2010 21:57, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > > > > > > > 2010/10/20 Mikhail Korobov : > >> There is an unresolved question in the ticket: "The only hesitation is > >> the relationship with #12815; we should resolve that decision before > >> committing anything for this ticket." > > >> #12815 is about introducing TemplateResponse. Is the patch with > >> 'render' shortcut returning just HttpResponse acceptable? I think that > >> TemplateResponse is less useful after class-based views make their way > >> into trunk so 'render' shortcut shouldn't bother returning > >> TemplateResponse. There are ways to reuse view logic (and change view > >> context in particular) now and TemplateResponse (which was a good > >> addition to django 1.2/1.1/1.0) seems to only complicate things in > >> django 1.3. > > > I agree completely with this reasoning - just render returning an > > HttpResponse is fine, I think. > > Both render_to_response() and direct_to_template() have one very > annoying flaw:http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/12669. Please add > a "response_class" keyword to your render() function ;). Thanks! > > -- > Łukasz Rekucki -- 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
On 20 October 2010 21:57, Jacob Kaplan-Mosswrote: > 2010/10/20 Mikhail Korobov : >> There is an unresolved question in the ticket: "The only hesitation is >> the relationship with #12815; we should resolve that decision before >> committing anything for this ticket." >> >> #12815 is about introducing TemplateResponse. Is the patch with >> 'render' shortcut returning just HttpResponse acceptable? I think that >> TemplateResponse is less useful after class-based views make their way >> into trunk so 'render' shortcut shouldn't bother returning >> TemplateResponse. There are ways to reuse view logic (and change view >> context in particular) now and TemplateResponse (which was a good >> addition to django 1.2/1.1/1.0) seems to only complicate things in >> django 1.3. > > I agree completely with this reasoning - just render returning an > HttpResponse is fine, I think. Both render_to_response() and direct_to_template() have one very annoying flaw: http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/12669. Please add a "response_class" keyword to your render() function ;). Thanks! -- Łukasz Rekucki -- 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
2010/10/20 Mikhail Korobov: > There is an unresolved question in the ticket: "The only hesitation is > the relationship with #12815; we should resolve that decision before > committing anything for this ticket." > > #12815 is about introducing TemplateResponse. Is the patch with > 'render' shortcut returning just HttpResponse acceptable? I think that > TemplateResponse is less useful after class-based views make their way > into trunk so 'render' shortcut shouldn't bother returning > TemplateResponse. There are ways to reuse view logic (and change view > context in particular) now and TemplateResponse (which was a good > addition to django 1.2/1.1/1.0) seems to only complicate things in > django 1.3. I agree completely with this reasoning - just render returning an HttpResponse is fine, I think. Jacob -- 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
That's great! I'll mark the ticket as assigned for me then. There is an unresolved question in the ticket: "The only hesitation is the relationship with #12815; we should resolve that decision before committing anything for this ticket." #12815 is about introducing TemplateResponse. Is the patch with 'render' shortcut returning just HttpResponse acceptable? I think that TemplateResponse is less useful after class-based views make their way into trunk so 'render' shortcut shouldn't bother returning TemplateResponse. There are ways to reuse view logic (and change view context in particular) now and TemplateResponse (which was a good addition to django 1.2/1.1/1.0) seems to only complicate things in django 1.3. On 21 окт, 01:02, Jacob Kaplan-Mosswrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Mikhail Korobov > wrote: > > So please add the 'render' shortcut in 1.3. > > It's one of the things on my list. If you'd like to make it happen > faster, a patch + tests would make it a no-brainer for me. > > Jacob -- 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.
Re: Gentle Proposal: add 'render' shortcut in 1.3
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Mikhail Korobovwrote: > So please add the 'render' shortcut in 1.3. It's one of the things on my list. If you'd like to make it happen faster, a patch + tests would make it a no-brainer for me. Jacob -- 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.