On 11/13/07, Russell Keith-Magee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 13, 2007 5:37 AM, Joseph Kocherhans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 11/11/07, Russell Keith-Magee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > The problem I have with ModelForm is that it doesn't feel like it has > > > any parallels with the existing class-based formdefinitions. > ... > > I see your point and I've been increasingly unhappy with my original > > syntax for exactly those reasons, though you put it a lot more > > eloquently than I would have. :) I came up with a new hybrid this > > morning that I think addresses both of our concerns, and to me feels a > > lot better than either of them. > > This looks a lot better to me. +1.
Implemented in #6042 [1]. I've left form_for_model and form_for_instance alone for now, and tried to make use of the existing code as much as possible. I'd like to see form_for_instance die, and for form_for_model to be scaled back a lot, essentially turning into a convenience function for a bare-bones, nothing custom, form for a model. I'll see if I can pick Malcolm's/Jacob's brains during the sprint to come up with an acceptable way forward. Joseph [1] http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/6042 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
