On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 2:29 PM, James PIC <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 12/17/08, Russell Keith-Magee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > A better solution would be to come up with a name munging scheme that > > guaranteed to give unique permission names that will always fit into > > the available space. 50 characters is plenty to establish a unique > > name; we already perform a similar munging with the names for database > > constraints. > > That would be much smarter indeed! here, btw. is a bug I found, confirmed and submitted regarding that munging: http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/9253 the hash munging may vary depending on the OS you are on, and in my case on the deployment server it overflowed MySQL's allowable constraint identifier size. just FYI munging the constraint name is fine IMO, but I the the foreign keys to be readable. the easiest thing to do is .... > > Of course, the simplest solution is for you to pick shorter class > > names, and for us to document the limitation. > Just for kidding: > class Lot(Mandat, Bien, PourLocation, PourVente, LotAddresse, > AvecEquipementsAnnexes, Textes, Immeuble): > It was that, or models with thousands of similar fields, high WTF/hour :) just be thankful you aren't coding in german :) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
