Evaluate django-ninja as a DRF replacement

Don't freak out or take it too seriously, emphasis on "evaluate". This is probably a pulpcore 3.40 change at the earliest and might not ultimately be realistic.

DRF is verbose and doesn't deal with situations like https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/issues/2138 well (or some of the optimizations that Gerrod has added). The particular way it separates serializers and viewsets make some optimizations and features which we need very difficult. Additionally the inclusion of type annotations in Python has opened up a lot of new ergonomic approaches which weren't available at the time.

django-ninja is a FastAPI-style framework built on top of Django (instead of Starlette like FastAPI is). In my personal subjective opinion, it is far far nicer than DRF. It works with both async and non-async code, but is designed for async first, whereas DRF has no real roadmap for async except through an entirely new package

https://django-ninja.rest-framework.com/

The main challenges would be:

• RBAC / access policy
• Nested Routers (creating them is trivial, I just mean we have a ton of hacks to support this currently that need to be reevaluated)
• Transition (is there some way to smooth it out for plugin writers?)
• openapi docs (django-ninja has them, but they're different, need to verify everything would work)

Start by reviewing the current DRF approach and the django-ninja documentation, then examine issue #2138 and the listed concerns around RBAC, nested routers, plugin transition, and OpenAPI docs. Done means producing an evaluation of feasibility and migration implications, not necessarily replacing DRF.