On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 09:46:43AM +0700, Ben Ford wrote:
>Hi Brian,
>Just a quick question from me regarding your comment about supporting
>multiple databases... I've had a quick look through your patch and it
>seems to cover a lot of the ground that the multi-db has already
>c
On 8/15/07, sime <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > class MyForm(Form)
> >field1 = ...
> >field2 = ...
> >
> >def generic_clean(self):
> > # ...
> >
> >clean_field1 = generic_clean
> >clean_field2 = generic_clean
>
> T
Recent checkin http://code.djangoproject.com/changeset/5887 broke
running an individual test:
...>runtests.py select_related
Error: Couldn't install apps, because there were errors in one or more
models:
flatpages.flatpage: 'sites' has m2m relation with model Site, which
has not been installed
re
> class MyForm(Form)
>field1 = ...
>field2 = ...
>
>def generic_clean(self):
> # ...
>
>clean_field1 = generic_clean
>clean_field2 = generic_clean
The problem here is generic_clean doesn't know which field it is, an
> I've accomplished the same thing with a template filter called "bunch"
> -- it converts a list into a list of tuples that have been bunched.
> I'd rather add a "bunch" filter than make this change to the regroup
> tag, because this would completely change the meaning of the regroup
> tag.
Sound
On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 16:29 -0700, Simon Greenhill wrote:
> The last time we discussed this [1] I think everyone sort of concluded
> that a binary field was a sensible idea as long as it's PRIMARILY for
> storing small chunks of binary info, and not an easy-I-want-to-store-
> binaries-in-my-databa
Hi Brian,
Just a quick question from me regarding your comment about supporting
multiple databases... I've had a quick look through your patch and it seems
to cover a lot of the ground that the multi-db has already changed.
- I was wondering if you're familiar at all with mulitple-db branch
On 8/14/07, George Vilches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> George Vilches wrote:
> Unfortunately, since there's only a syncdb signal, I can't even do
> things like a reset on it, and there's definitely no way currently to
> get the SQL generated from my syncdb signal. Being able to get the
> CREAT
I don't really have much invested in this topic, but I really think
one of the other topics floating around has a decent approach to this
problem. If FileField and its subclasses had a way to swap out storage
mechanisms, a BLOB could be used internally to store the file data for
a FileField.
This
The last time we discussed this [1] I think everyone sort of concluded
that a binary field was a sensible idea as long as it's PRIMARILY for
storing small chunks of binary info, and not an easy-I-want-to-store-
binaries-in-my-database type of thing.
>From memory, most of the issues in that discus
On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 04:36:22PM -0500, Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> After a cursory read-through the patch, my only major complaint is the
> unnecessary cleverness of some of the code.
Alt example besides BackendOps/BackendCapabilities would be
appreciated (your phrasing implies there is more); t
On 7/30/07, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In my opinion BlobField's need some kind of support inside of Django
> before the coming of 0.97 release.
>
> They have never been officially supported, but they were at least
> usable (as say a TextField) before Unicode. Now they're unusable a
On 7/31/07, sime <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all I have a patch to the regroup tag which allows --
>
> Regroup into any number of groups, of set size --
> {% regroup list every 4 as grouped %}
>
> Regroup into set number of groups, at any size --
> {% regroup list into 4 as grouped %}
>
> I've
On 8/13/07, Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As hinted at earlier on the ml, have started doing some work on
> refactoring the actual db backend; ticket 5106 holds the current
> version (http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/5106).
Hey Brian,
These look like solid improvements to me.
A
On 8/14/07, Russell Keith-Magee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would suggest that rather than trying to make the --with-fixture
> flag handle all this, it would be better to do this as a top level
> command, i.e.:
>
> django-admin.py testserver mydata.json accounts.json categories.json
>
> This wo
Marty Alchin wrote:
> Okay, I'll post one last time on this subject, then leave you guys to
> do what you're supposed to be doing. I'm only posting here in case who
> heard me ranting find it interesting. I did manage to come up with a
> solution like I mentioned, and I'll be posting it soon. It'd
Okay, I'll post one last time on this subject, then leave you guys to
do what you're supposed to be doing. I'm only posting here in case who
heard me ranting find it interesting. I did manage to come up with a
solution like I mentioned, and I'll be posting it soon. It'd be up
already, but it seems
On 8/14/07, George Vilches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thoughts?
Absolutely! Though I think this thread would get too far off-topic if
I rattle them all off right now. I'll do a little work on the subject
and see what I can come up with. Your approach looks very close to
what I was thinking, but
Hello,
I'm not entirely sure how Amazon S3 affects your situation, but #2070
is the only option I know of to chunk your files (i.e. to avoid
loading the entire contents into memory).
If you're using #2070, then the files that were successfully streamed
will have a ['tmpfile'] attribute, which is
Marty Alchin wrote:
> This sounds like a far more complicated example than I had considered
> when I was doing my work with dynamic models[1], but I did have
> success getting syncdb to install dynamic models, provided a few
> things are in order. I probably didn't document them well enough on
> t
This sounds like a far more complicated example than I had considered
when I was doing my work with dynamic models[1], but I did have
success getting syncdb to install dynamic models, provided a few
things are in order. I probably didn't document them well enough on
the wiki, but I could do so if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi there,
Not sure what you're trying to achieve with FileWrapper,
however here's how I'd do it with Django prior to revision 5818:
...
if request.method == 'POST':
# Fetch some new data..
new_data = request.POST.copy()
new_data.update(re
Hi there!
I'm using Amazon S3 for file storage, so I have to access the FILES-
object directly in my view. So #2070 won't have any effect, as far as
I can see.
I've been thinking about the FileWrapper-object.
If I access it like this: the_file =
FileWrapper(file(StringIO(request.FILES['file']['c
George Vilches wrote:
> Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>> On 8/12/07, George Vilches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 1) Add a signal to every option?
>> If we were going to go down this path, this would be the preferred
>> option. However, I'm not sure I'm convinced of the need. Which
>> commands exact
Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> On 8/12/07, George Vilches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 1) Add a signal to every option?
>
> If we were going to go down this path, this would be the preferred
> option. However, I'm not sure I'm convinced of the need. Which
> commands exactly do you think require si
On 8/12/07, George Vilches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 1) Add a signal to every option?
If we were going to go down this path, this would be the preferred
option. However, I'm not sure I'm convinced of the need. Which
commands exactly do you think require signals?
Yours,
Russ Magee %-)
--~--
On 8/13/07, George Vilches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> > The configuration option will need to be a little more generic - i.e.,
> > putting the entire backend into a record mode - not just a single
> > cursor call.
>
> Second, we could add a class level variable to
On 8/14/07, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm proposing a "--with-fixture" flag to django-admin.py, so that you
> could do something like this:
>
> django-admin.py runserver --with-fixture=mydata.json
+1 to the general idea.
However, this syntax (--with-fixture) doesn't real
if re-serializing the data when closing the dev server, wouldn't it be
easier to just leave it in the db and not trash/recreate the db all
the time, and manually dump/load the serialized data when necessary?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because
29 matches
Mail list logo
