Opened 17 years ago
Closed 17 years ago
#5647 closed (wontfix)
Your First App - URL section - too complex - suggestions
Reported by: | Owned by: | nobody | |
---|---|---|---|
Component: | Documentation | Version: | dev |
Severity: | Keywords: | ||
Cc: | Triage Stage: | Design decision needed | |
Has patch: | no | Needs documentation: | no |
Needs tests: | no | Patch needs improvement: | no |
Easy pickings: | no | UI/UX: | no |
Description
Yikes, the section on URL's is really too complex for "First App" - it's great that Django has all that power but especially for the "First App" the poor new user does not need to be exposed to that much - it's pretty overwhelming. So let's just use a simple example:
"(r'mymodel/list/$', 'myproject.myapp.views.mymodel_listing'),"
forget the part of using "/include" - a first app doesn't need that level of detail.
Just keep the focus on how the user needs to provide a translation table of what the URL is and what it calls - and why the user needs to do this manually in Django as opposed to how it's automatically done in Rails. But I would add a "Tip" window that explains how the "myproject.myapp.views" can be moved to the patterns parameter for easier listings (I just discovered this rereading the section). Anything easier, simpler should always be highlighted in a "Tips" box
Change History (4)
comment:1 by , 17 years ago
comment:2 by , 17 years ago
Triage Stage: | Unreviewed → Design decision needed |
---|
comment:4 by , 17 years ago
Resolution: | → wontfix |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
The current text isn't particularly unclear. It starts out slowly and provides enough examples for people to compare and contrast the differences (a learning technique that is lost when you only use a single line). Let's leave it as it is.
-1
Leaving out
include()
would be a bad thing, since then users wouldn't know about it unless they go digging, which results in monolithurls.py
files, and it's hardly any complexity at all.