On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Andrew Godwin <and...@aeracode.org> wrote: > On 23/10/10 12:54, George Sakkis wrote: >> >> This has been (rightly) marked as DDN, so I'm wondering if there are >> any thoughts on it to move it forward, one way or another. Original >> thread at >> http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/browse_frm/thread/3b5939ba089bce51/67892d99a9a6aff3. >> >> George > > My personal opinion on this is that we shouldn't put this into pre_save - > I'd rather not have us doing a query before we get that far (and I've seen > quite a few things that do some validation in pre_save, so cancellation > happens reasonably often). > > I'm also not particularly fond of adding yet another signal - we risk making > it a mess of connection points, and signal calls, even if empty, do have > overhead. > > My preferred solution is either to not ship this, or replace it with a > decorator which does this for you (so you can wrap your pre_save listener > function in the decorator, which does the existence query for you, and which > also passes this information back up to the model instance so we don't end > up doing three queries). That way, people who want this can have it, we > don't have a useless extra query in nearly any scenario, and we don't change > current behaviour.
For the record, I concur with Andrew's reasoning. Yours, Russ Magee %-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
