@Noah, You could also look at it as what a AnonymousUser can't do on
some objects (while it's possible on others).
-- Gert
Mobile: +32 498725202
Web: http://gert.selentic.net
2010/1/19 Noah Silas :
> I'm not certain I understand - if anyone can perform some action, what's the
> point of protec
Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
There are some cases where this shouldn't happen - for example, in a
master/slave setup. I'm tinkering with some code at the moment to
control this sort of database allocation.
Russel, can you share your ideas on the matter? I'm about to port
(soon-ish) my replicatio
Raffaele Salmaso wrote:
> Joseph Kocherhans wrote:
>> regressions?
> http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/12577
Hello, is anybody out there?
Sorry if I seem rude, but there is a severe regression an no one care to
say at least 'ok I see it', even when there is an *explicit* request for
regressions.
2010/1/18 Noah Silas :
> I'm not certain I understand - if anyone can perform some action, what's the
> point of protecting it with a permissions check?
> ~Noah Silas
>
>
> 2010/1/18 Łukasz Rekucki
>>
>> 2010/1/18 Alex Gaynor :
>> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Jannis Leidel
>> > wrote:
>> >>
I'm not certain I understand - if anyone can perform some action, what's the
point of protecting it with a permissions check?
~Noah Silas
2010/1/18 Łukasz Rekucki
> 2010/1/18 Alex Gaynor :
> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Jannis Leidel
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Am 18.01.2010 um 22:26 schrieb Luke
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Eric Holscher wrote:
> Saw this go in, and it gets a huge +1 from me as well. However, I know that
> in the past we have talked about adding other things to the test runner
> (like coverage, etc), so it would seem like now would be a good time to
> recommend accep
2010/1/18 Alex Gaynor :
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Jannis Leidel wrote:
>>
>> Am 18.01.2010 um 22:26 schrieb Luke Plant:
>>
>>> Hi Harro,
>>>
Hmm I guess I'll just have to keep on hacking django then..
because that 1% case is something I keep running into for every
project i
On Monday 18 January 2010 21:55:58 Jannis Leidel wrote:
> > Anyone got a good reason reason why this *shouldn't* go in? I'm
> > +1 on committing.
>
> Hm, I don't see a good argument to allow anonymous users to have a
> permissions, to be honest. Anonymous users are by definition not
> authentic
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Jannis Leidel wrote:
>
> Am 18.01.2010 um 22:26 schrieb Luke Plant:
>
>> Hi Harro,
>>
>>> Hmm I guess I'll just have to keep on hacking django then..
>>> because that 1% case is something I keep running into for every
>>> project in one way or another.
>>> And if i
Am 18.01.2010 um 22:26 schrieb Luke Plant:
> Hi Harro,
>
>> Hmm I guess I'll just have to keep on hacking django then..
>> because that 1% case is something I keep running into for every
>> project in one way or another.
>> And if it was designed for most apps, why was the row level
>> permissio
Hi Harro,
> Hmm I guess I'll just have to keep on hacking django then..
> because that 1% case is something I keep running into for every
> project in one way or another.
> And if it was designed for most apps, why was the row level
> permission bits added? It's useless without simply always bein
Well, I think you're right. It would be a lot of code, but it would be
useful in just few cases.
> This seems like a lot of work and tweeks, just so you can save that 2
> lines to define a class.
>
> class DictModel(models.Model):
>class Meta:
>abstract = True
>ordering = ['val
This is not the right forum for job postings. This list is for discussion
related to the development of Django itself.
You might instead try the django-users list [1] or the Django Gigs web site
[2]. In all honestly you will find a much larger number of actual Django
developers at either of thos
Hey there,
I am looking for a full-time Django developer(preferably someone with
a solid python background) to work remotely or in Lisbon , Portugal.
We are currently developing several web applications in Django and
need someone to complete our team.
I am sorry if this is inapropriate but it is
Hmm I guess I'll just have to keep on hacking django then..
because that 1% case is something I keep running into for every
project in one way or another.
And if it was designed for most apps, why was the row level permission
bits added? It's useless without simply always being able to call
request
Hi,
for me it has a big WTF factor. Automatically created tables according
to field.
As DirectoryField I would suppose behaviour like SET or ENUM fields in
MySQL. I hope there are equivalents in other DB storages.
Implementation of this types I would appreciate in Django ORM. This
doesn't need to
Mihail's initial version doesn't have any data in each model. So
presumably he's just tracking primary keys. In which case a
PositiveIntegerField would work.
And some of the use cases look awfully like 'choices=...' would be the
best bet. Others would be fine if you queried the current set of
valu
Saw this go in, and it gets a huge +1 from me as well. However, I know that
in the past we have talked about adding other things to the test runner
(like coverage, etc), so it would seem like now would be a good time to
recommend accepting **kwargs in your custom test runners, so that when we
add i
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Bill Hubauer wrote:
> One of the use cases that may be common for multiple database support is
> being able to combine multiple Django applications that require different
> databases into a single site. This is exactly what I need to do for one
> project. Thi
Hi all,
One of the use cases that may be common for multiple database support is being
able to combine multiple Django applications that require different databases
into a single site. This is exactly what I need to do for one project. This
can be done with the new multiple database suppor
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 4:58 AM, Jeff Balogh wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 6:26 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This is a quick call for comment on ticket #12624.
>>
>> This ticket proposes to make Django's test runner a class-based,
>> rather than function based operation.
>
On Jan 17, 2010, at 6:54 PM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> As far as I'm aware, that's exactly what should be happening. If you
> retrieve an object from 'other', the object should retain an internal
> state that indicates that it came from 'other', and subsequent
> database operations (including
22 matches
Mail list logo
