Hello all,
First let me thanks all developer for a great thing like Django.
Now can anybody tell me about the status of Django's SQLAlchemy
branch. I could not find any place describing the status on
code.djangoproject.com.
Regards.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You r
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 11:17 +0800, TerryH wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> I try to follow the doc on
> http://www.djangoproject.com/documentation/models/many_to_many/
> seems we could not compose the filter with Q (from django.db.models import Q)
It's a known bug. Using the same field in the Q object ge
Dear list,
I try to follow the doc on
http://www.djangoproject.com/documentation/models/many_to_many/
seems we could not compose the filter with Q (from django.db.models import Q)
example on the doc:
>>> Article.objects.filter(publications=p1)
[, ]
>>> Article.objects.filter(publications=p2)
[]
Ivan Sagalaev wrote:
> Uhmmm... Pardon me, what is the change you are taliking about? :-)
Ok, I see now your post in this thread later.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To p
Adrian,
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 16:57 -0500, Adrian Holovaty wrote:
[...]
> I've done some thinking on this, too, and I think the cleanest way to
> solve it would be to introduce optional names for URL patterns.
> Something like this:
>
> url(r'^objects/$', some_view, name='object_view'),
>
Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> Relax, Ivan. Changing the call from a tuple to url(...) is a ten line
> change in django/conf/urls/defaults.py.
Uhmmm... Pardon me, what is the change you are taliking about? :-) I
actually didn't mean any specific code changes, just was worried about
things going wi
On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 09:45 +0400, Ivan Sagalaev wrote:
> Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> > Extending the URL resolving system is easier if we have an object to
> > work with instead of a tuple for those entries.
>
> Ah, I see it.
>
> However let's make it a separate issue. I'm afraid that if we sta
It has been commited ; that is cool, but without any "and" or "," that
is not cool.
Like in my example, it is idiot to have to open a tag by variable...
no?
On Mar 27, 2:04 am, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 17:06 -0500, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> > On 3/26/
On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 03:57 -0700, Simon G. wrote:
> Ok, my reading of the general consensus here is that everyone thinks a
> BinaryField is a good idea, so I've kept #2417 as accepted, with the
> patch needing a few improvements.
>
Is this BinaryField the BLOB variety or the BINARY/VARBINARY var
Ok, my reading of the general consensus here is that everyone thinks a
BinaryField is a good idea, so I've kept #2417 as accepted, with the
patch needing a few improvements.
The second issue - a (say) BinaryStorageField for large bin. data
hooked up to Image/File uploads seems to be one that's wa
> I've done some thinking on this, too, and I think the cleanest way to
> solve it would be to introduce optional names for URL patterns.
Sounds really nice. And it doesn't even enforce to break the {% url %} tag:
{% url some.view ... %} -> view lookup
{% url "some name" ... %} -> name lookup
Bu
11 matches
Mail list logo
