Am 27.11.22 um 13:51 schrieb Raphael G:
So my ask here: how do people feel about moving forward with this limited scope? Previous discussions talked about wanting a larger scope for it to get merged into core. I believe that instead targetting a smaller scope means we can at least provide a workable answer to theDATABASE_URLquestion in the near term. And when consensus coalesces around a good overall answer to settings, the actual URL parsing logic will already be present and even more battle tested.
+1 from my side, even with reduced versatility or scope it covers (sometimes a too broad scope just gives you more pros and cons discussions with a higher probability of sidetracking things into nowhere).
Some background - several years back we used SQLObject as ORM driver alot in python projects and switched later to SQLAlchemy (still using it for heavy db lifting projects). I always found the URI connection scheme appealing and easy to go with.
On django side of things I kinda always wondered why the connection settings were that verbose to get running, but never wondered hard enough to question its explicit style.
Well, in terms of conformance to other frameworks I see a clear benefit here.
Cheers, Jörg -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/bc54e939-df5a-b370-ca21-d8415f274868%40netzkolchose.de.
