On Oct 25, 4:28 pm, Russell Keith-Magee <russ...@keith-magee.com> wrote: > 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/3b.... > > >> 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.
Fair enough; unless someone objects in the next few days, I'll close it as wontfix. George -- 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.
