On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Donald Stufft <donald.stu...@gmail.com> wrote: > What Alex said. If it was _just_ the username then you'd have a good > argument for > a setting like that. However there's username, email, some people want to > add > fields, some want to get rid of, or combine fields. Ideally any change would > work > for as many of those use cases without turning into a giant set of boolean > flags > that drastically alter the DB schema. >
No-one is talking about a 'giant set of boolean flags', or drastically altering the DB schema. The email field needs to accept email addresses of up to 254 octets. The username field should be able to hold common fields used as a username, eg emails, and hence needs to be longer. That is one boolean flag. No more. If you want more flexibility on the model, you would use the proposed pluggable auth models. What the much maligned setting gives us is a way to provision new sites and migrate existing sites that care about that situation in to a position where users with long email addresses can sign up to a django site. Score. Cheers Tom -- 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 django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
