There's a big spam run happening in the Trac right now. I reopened this
ticket about the problem:
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/813
and added a couple links to Trac enhancements that might help.
pb
--
http://e-scribe.com/news/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You
> I'm thinking more and more that a nice, simple Django improvement
> would be to allow URLconfs to specify the view object itself, rather
> than a string representing the path to the view.
>...
Two small questions: Would the first positional argument to patterns()
just go away? Also, how would t
On 5/5/06, Michael Radziej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a month ago, I submitted a patch that makes inspectdb order the models
> in a way that is free of forward dependencies (if possible).
>
> I'm pretty sure it won't break anything since it only involves inspectdb
> code. I found it very useful
I'm thinking more and more that a nice, simple Django improvement
would be to allow URLconfs to specify the view object itself, rather
than a string representing the path to the view.
Old example:
urlpatterns = patterns('',
(r'^map/$', 'mysite.views.the_map'),
)
New example:
On 5/6/06, bickfordb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i started working on a standalone django templating project:
>
> http://k9.dv8.org/~bran/djangotemplate-0.2.tar.gz
>
> is there any interest in merging something this into the main tree?
Hi bickfordb,
Yes, we're very interested in making the temp
hi jason, i am willing to help but i am not a python expert (yet). that
being said, if you'd explain how this backend works (especially the
oracle-related tweaks) we could work on it together.
thanks,
peter
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because
i started working on a standalone django templating project:
http://k9.dv8.org/~bran/djangotemplate-0.2.tar.gz
is there any interest in merging something this into the main tree?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the G
On 5/6/06, Luke Plant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But, thinking about it, perhaps it should actually raise IndexError in
> this situation, and use DoesNotExist for explicit .get() calls? This
> would make it act more like other sequences. I don't know how much
> code this might impact.
That so
On Saturday 06 May 2006 04:44, Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> Good call! I've changed the docs. For some reason I was thinking a
> simple slice would raise KeyError instead of DoesNotExist, but it
> does indeed raise DoesNotExist properly.
Ah yes, I hadn't thought about exceptions. I've now fixed a c
