Pulp

That's a shame. I like the attribute approach, but this comment supports what you're suggesting that we shouldn't depend on the attribute "http_method_names".

https://github.com/encode/django-rest-framework/issues/4691#issuecomment-261915377

"http_method_names is an internal implementation detail and is not intended a documented way to restrict which methods may be applied."

Using mixins the mixins directly will make our implementation a little bit more verbose, but it will also be more explicit. In particular, our abstraction inherits from mixins that we don't need and then use that variable to ignore those functions. It's easy on the eyes, but it has some code smell.

There is another reason to inherit directly from the mixins, which is the need for asynchronous calls. I wrote it up in this refactor:
https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3038. With the addition of async mixins, we will need more "inheritance abstracting classes" like the NamedModelViewSet. Rather than choosing from a long list of classes to get the right mixins, lets just pick the right mixins where we use them. This will be more flexible and probably less likely to surprise us.