Hi all,
Just to let you know that there's an X-Sendfile implementation for
WSGI apps (inc. Django), which also works with Nginx:
https://launchpad.net/wsgi-xsendfile
You can use it in Django views via twod.wsgi. For example:
"""
from twod.wsgi import call_wsgi_app
from xsendfile import NginxSend
Hi Russ,
Thanks for the long reply and all the suggestions. My comments are
inline.
> What if you need to support both? e.g.,
>
>
> the bar value
>
>
> It seems to me that you would be better served providing a way to
> annotate each individual metadata value as (and I'm bikeshedding a
> nam
Hey All,
This is somewhat related to the ticket “Process HTTP PUT into
request.FILES and request.PUT as done for POST” [1], although much broader
in scope.
In that ticket there’s a link to a related discussion [2] where Malcolm
Tredinnick explains why a request.PUT that mirrors the current
Hi,
I look at your example code. You need to name the webserver in the
code. That's not very nice. I guess it should be possible to
guess the webserver (apache vs nginx) by looking at request.META.
Documentation would be nice
Thomas
On 25.03.2011 10:23, Gustavo Narea wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
On 25 March 2011 12:34, Thomas Guettler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I look at your example code. You need to name the webserver in the
> code. That's not very nice. I guess it should be possible to
> guess the webserver (apache vs nginx) by looking at request.META.
>
-1 on guessing anything, especially some
On Fri, 2011-03-25 at 12:55 +0100, Łukasz Rekucki wrote:
> On 25 March 2011 12:34, Thomas Guettler wrote:
> > I look at your example code. You need to name the webserver in the
> > code. That's not very nice. I guess it should be possible to
> > guess the webserver (apache vs nginx) by looking at
On 25.03.2011 12:55, Łukasz Rekucki wrote:
> On 25 March 2011 12:34, Thomas Guettler wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I look at your example code. You need to name the webserver in the
>> code. That's not very nice. I guess it should be possible to
>> guess the webserver (apache vs nginx) by looking at reques
That's also already done, check
https://github.com/django-extensions/django-extensions/blob/master/django_extensions/management/commands/show_urls.py,
it can be easily converted to JSON (I have a branch that does it, but
it's not up-to-date).
I also have the urls module in JavaScript already, but
Wow, I got a lot more responses to this than I'd thought, so I'd say
I'm well on my way here. Thanks so much everyone -- y'all rock.
Jacob
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-develope
Hi,
I've running (or trying) the django 1.3 test suite and I've got an
error with the next traceback...
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/home/maxi/projects/django/django/tests/modeltests/fixtures/
tests.py", line 221, in test_compress_format_loading
''
File "/home/maxi/projects/d
We can't help you if you don't tell us a bit more about your system.
What version of Python? What OS? Is there anything else unusual about
your system or how you are running the tests?
-Paul
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
On 25 mar, 16:44, Paul McMillan wrote:
> We can't help you if you don't tell us a bit more about your system.
> What version of Python? What OS?
I'm running django 1.3 from trunk. I'm using Ubuntu 10.04 and python
2.6.5
>Is there anything else unusual about
> your system or how you are running t
The extra object is in the initial_data.json fixture which is loaded
automatically. If you're not seeing that object than something is wrong with
your initial_data fixture loading.
- Gabriel
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" g
On 25 mar, 19:21, Gabriel Hurley wrote:
> The extra object is in the initial_data.json fixture which is loaded
> automatically. If you're not seeing that object than something is wrong with
> your initial_data fixture loading.
>
> - Gabriel
Hi Gabriel,
Thank for response.
I see now what I ha
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 7:20 PM, maxi wrote:
> On 25 mar, 19:21, Gabriel Hurley wrote:
> > The extra object is in the initial_data.json fixture which is loaded
> > automatically. If you're not seeing that object than something is wrong
> with
> > your initial_data fixture loading.
> >
> > -
On 25 mar, 20:22, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 7:20 PM, maxi wrote:
> > On 25 mar, 19:21, Gabriel Hurley wrote:
> > > The extra object is in the initial_data.json fixture which is loaded
> > > automatically. If you're not seeing that object than something is wrong
> > with
> >
On Friday, March 25, 2011 11:43:39 PM UTC+11, Pascal Germroth wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2011-03-25 at 12:55 +0100, Łukasz Rekucki wrote:
> > On 25 March 2011 12:34, Thomas Guettler wrote:
> > > I look at your example code. You need to name the webserver in the
> > > code. That's not very nice. I guess
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 6:45 PM, maxi wrote:
> Yes, that seems to be the problem. Firebird doesn't support deferred
> constraints.
> Are there any approach or workaround to solve this ?
No workarounds, no. We need to refactor our test suite to not rely on
deferred constraints (except of course wh
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 6:45 PM, maxi wrote:
> > Yes, that seems to be the problem. Firebird doesn't support deferred
> > constraints.
> > Are there any approach or workaround to solve this ?
>
> No workarounds, no. We need to refactor
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> There's http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/3615, most of the effort there
> has been on making MySQL not be stupid though :) Someone at PyCon told me
> they found a way to make it work though (Chris Adams I think?).
I dunno -- almost every
20 matches
Mail list logo
