Luke Plant wrote:
> On Saturday 11 February 2006 19:07, Robert Wittams wrote:
>
>
>>So I would suggest:
>>
>>Article.objects:
>>
>> is a query set that supports all the normal operations, but is
>>uncached
>>
>>Article.objects.cached():
>>
>> is a query set that is cached. Otherwise the same as
>This variable would be set at the beginning/end of requests, and also
>when switching threads in a multi threaded server, if any exist... This
>way the .cached() would be unnecessary - the cache would be scoped to
>the request in the web context, and caching contexts could be explicitly
>set in o
On Saturday 11 February 2006 19:07, Robert Wittams wrote:
> So I would suggest:
>
> Article.objects:
>
> is a query set that supports all the normal operations, but is
> uncached
>
> Article.objects.cached():
>
> is a query set that is cached. Otherwise the same as Article.objects
In this case
Robert Wittams wrote:
> The other solution to this is to have a 'context' variable in the vein
> of PEP 343, which the caches would be attached to (rather than being in
> the caches themselves).
>
Er, I meant 'in the query sets themselves'...
Luke Plant wrote:
> I'm actually more bothered by the .all() required everytime you use
> related lookups to actually get the objects (which isn't what this
> thread is really about, I know). There is no reason for it technically
> (the reason for Managers was caching and persistence), and it
Then don't use comments. Use docstrings.
On Saturday 11 February 2006 14:47, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> > I think the main issue is whether we want methods
> > that can alter data on the QuerySet directly
>
> I don't follow - why is direct modification of the query set a bad
> thing? Is the problem one of expected behaviour, or is it
On 2/11/06, Luke Plant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Saturday 11 February 2006 08:51, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
> > Comments? Have I got it right this time?
>
> I think the main issue is whether we want methods
> that can alter data on the QuerySet directly
I don't follow - why is direct m
On Saturday 11 February 2006 08:51, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> Comments? Have I got it right this time?
It looks OK to me. I think the main issue is whether we want methods
that can alter data on the QuerySet directly. This kind of relates to
a change I mentioned before - having the 'Relat
On 2/6/06, Kuba Konczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think this is too much.We only need to validate applications models
> that we want to install and maybe also core modules.
Hi Kuba,
Well spotted. This is a problem - however, the solution isn't quite as
simple as your patch, because you need
Hi all,
Now that the dust has settled on the descriptor work, I've turned back
to bulk delete.
I've attached a new patch to the original ticket -
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/1219 - which is updated to
reflect the descriptor changes.
Notes:
1) As with the last version, the joins_allowe
11 matches
Mail list logo
