Hello Samarjeet,
“Can I do this?” and “How can I do this?” questions also go to django-users.
May I kindly suggest writing to the django-users mailing list until someone
tells you an issue you’re facing is likely a bug in Django that hasn’t been
reported yet ?
Then you can create a ticket on h
FWIW I’m in the same boat as Russell:
- limited familiarity with channels: I read the docs cover-to-cover but never
ran the code
- sufficient trust in their design: I heard Andrew talk about it and I thought
it made sense
- reasonable confidence that it won’t introduce regressions, including
pe
On Thursday, May 5, 2016, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> I will admin that I haven’t been paying *close* attention to Andrew’s work
> - I’m aware of the broad strokes, and I’ve skimmed some of the design
> discussions, but I haven’t been keeping close tabs on things. From that
> (admittedly weak) p
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Anssi Kääriäinen
wrote:
> On Thursday, May 5, 2016, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>
>> I will admin that I haven’t been paying *close* attention to Andrew’s
>> work - I’m aware of the broad strokes, and I’ve skimmed some of the design
>> discussions, but I haven’t
Thanks, Tim.
Unfortunately I can't move past Django 1.7 yet -- dependencies. I've been
marching my way up one revision at a time hopefully up to 1.9 as a way to
keep the scope of what breaks under control as I move through each major
revision and stabilize my project. Then I attack replacing
If anyone is running into hidden required fields preventing forms from
submitting (like me), I've been using this jQuery code for a somewhat-hacky
quickfix:
$(':hidden[required]').removeAttr('required')
On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 12:27:28 PM UTC-4, Jon Dufresne wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 201
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Collin Anderson
wrote:
> If anyone is running into hidden required fields preventing forms from
> submitting (like me), I've been using this jQuery code for a somewhat-hacky
> quickfix:
>
> $(':hidden[required]').removeAttr('required')
>
>
The changes made on mast
After somewhat hijacking another thread
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/django-developers/t_zuh9ucSP4/eJ4TlEDMCAAJ
I thought it was best to start fresh and clearly spell out my feelings
about the Channels proposal. To start, this discussion of “Django needs a
websocket story” reminds me very
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Mark Lavin wrote:
> After somewhat hijacking another thread
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/django-developers/t_zuh9ucSP4/eJ4TlEDMCAAJ
> I thought it was best to start fresh and clearly spell out my feelings
> about the Channels proposal. To start, this discussi
Thank you, Mark, for starting this discussion. I, too, found myself simply
accepting that channels was the right way to go, despite having the same
questions you do. I realize this shouldn't be, so I've chimed in on some of
your comments.
> On May 5, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Mark Lavin wrote:
>
> [s
Andrew,
I worked very hard to edit the tone of this message and I'm sorry if you
felt anything in here was a personal attack. That certainly was not my
intent. My natural speaking tendency leans toward hyperbole and I think
there may have been places which got away from me here.
Best,
Mark
O
Thank you for your comments and I have some brief replies.
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 4:20:06 PM UTC-4, Andrew Godwin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Mark Lavin > wrote:
>
> The main gains are (in my opinion):
> - The same server process can serve both HTTP and WebSockets withou
Hi Andrew,
On 05/05/2016 02:19 PM, Andrew Godwin wrote:
> I will put my hand up and say that this sidestepped the DEP process, and
> that's entirely my fault. It was not my intention; I've been working on
> this for over two years, and only last year did I go public with my
> semi-final design and
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Mark Lavin wrote:
> Thank you for your comments and I have some brief replies.
>
>
> If I'm understanding it correctly, groups are an emulated broadcast. I'm
> saying it would be an advantage for it to use pub/sub but it does not.
>
You are correct; the reason Red
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Carl Meyer wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On 05/05/2016 02:19 PM, Andrew Godwin wrote:
> > I will put my hand up and say that this sidestepped the DEP process, and
> > that's entirely my fault. It was not my intention; I've been working on
> > this for over two years, and
On 05/05/2016 04:37 PM, Andrew Godwin wrote:
> To be honest, I had entirely forgotten the DEP process existed until
> this thread started up; I'm not sure what to blame this on, but as a
> member of the tech board I haven't got an email about approving a DEP
> since last October, so it's been a whi
Hi Jon,
They're regular input fields that I'm using jQuery to .hide() and .show()
form fields on the front end of my ecommerce sites, based on different
radio buttons. It's all my jQuery code. I then have custom logic in the
backend to delete fields from forms, or select which form to validate
aga
Yes I agree with the value of a standardized way of communicating between
these processes and I listed that as a highlight of Channels, though it
quickly shifted into criticism. I think that's where we are crossing paths
with relation to Kombu/AMQP as well. I find the messaging aspect of
Channe
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Carl Meyer wrote:
> I think channels, multiple-template-engines, and
> reworked-middleware (and migrations, for that matter) are all
> rethinkings of long-standing core aspects of how Django works, which in
> my mind makes them prime DEP candidates,
>
There seems
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Carl Meyer wrote:
>
> I've no desire either to aggravate your RSI or kick you in the teeth! I
> understand the multiple competing pressures here and won't stand in the
> way of a merge into 1.10 sans DEP if that still seems like the best path
> forward to you. It's
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Mark Lavin wrote:
> Yes I agree with the value of a standardized way of communicating between
> these processes and I listed that as a highlight of Channels, though it
> quickly shifted into criticism. I think that's where we are crossing paths
> with relation to K
On Thursday, May 5, 2016, Andrew Godwin wrote:
>
> Do you have a link to the presentation about them removing it?
>
https://youtu.be/839rskyJaro around 34 minutes and onwards, another version
is https://youtu.be/2dG5HeM7MvA at 24 minutes.
They were tackling a bit different problem, so their less
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 9:28 PM, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
> On Thursday, May 5, 2016, Andrew Godwin wrote:
>>
>> Do you have a link to the presentation about them removing it?
>>
>
> https://youtu.be/839rskyJaro around 34 minutes and onwards, another
> version is https://youtu.be/2dG5HeM7MvA at 24
23 matches
Mail list logo
