title: django 1.3 url template tag and class-based views
body: <p>I'm just starting to migrate an app I have to 1.3 from 1.1. </p>
  
  <p>I'm starting to get in the thick of class based views and am blown away, but not really in a good way.<br>
  I have some gripes but the specific question here is:</p>
  
  <p><strong>Is this the only way i can use the url template tag with a generic class-based view?</strong><br>
  <a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8588522/link-to-a-class-based-view">Django reverse url with parameters to a class based view</a><br>
  <strong>i.e. having to name every single url entry?</strong></p>
  
  <p>It seems ridiculous to me as one of the fundamental philosophies of Django is DRY and yet here we are.... RY-ing.....</p>
  
  <p>Thanks in advance.</p>
  
  <p><strong>Edit:</strong><br>
  So I have <a href="https://gist.github.com/1877374" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://gist.github.com/1877374</a>  </p>
  
  <p>and get the error
  TemplateSyntaxError
  Caught NoReverseMatch while rendering: Reverse for 'views.HomeView.as_view' with arguments '()' and keyword arguments '{}' not found.</p>
  
  <p>Am I using this incorrectly?</p>
  
  <hr>
  
  <p><strong>Tangent:</strong><br>
  I'd like to explain a little bit more about why I believe we are RY-ing if we have to name <strong>every single entry</strong> in the urls.py file</p>
  
  <p>my urls.py typically looks like
  <a href="https://gist.github.com/1877462" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://gist.github.com/1877462</a>  </p>
  
  <p>I understand completely about decoupling.<br>
  The point here is that we have the ability to do so <strong>when required</strong>. I absolutely use the name feature, when i need to. Otherwise, why would i want to spend the time and energy to redundently add url to every entry and name every entry when often they will be the same as the name of the class/funciton in views.py?</p>
  
  <p>Maybe this should be branched into a seperate question on SO.</p>