> Another good point. Only problem with removing it at this time is that
> people using 0.90 might find that section useful. We could remove it
> in 0.91.
>
Sounds good.
Brant Harris wrote:
> On 12/24/05, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Sounds good -- I like the RequestContext name. Other thoughts?
>
>
> UserContext?
>
What does it have to do with Users? It doesn't have to be filled with
authentication information or anything. Seems a bit strain
On 12/24/05, Robert Wittams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would vote to rename it RequestContext, or something else that makes
> clear what the point of it is (namely that it has special treatement for
> being initialised with a request). We can always keep DjangoContext as
> an alias.
Sounds g
On 12/24/05, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sounds good -- I like the RequestContext name. Other thoughts?
UserContext?
FileField
--
Ok, so I need to change the file field api, because the current one
requires special casing in the manipulator. It is also broken in the
presence of validation errors, or multiple requests ( which the fallback
non ajax admin now relies on).
FileField needs to act like everyt
Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> On 12/21/05, Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>#925 - [patch] Refactor functionality of DjangoContext into
>>'processors' which can be replaced or added to
>
>
> I've added this functionality to trunk.
>
> Adrian
>
> --
> Adrian Holovaty
> holovaty.com | djan
