On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:57 AM, Shai Berger wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am developing an application which needs to write an audit log to a
> database. I want the committing of log records to be independent of the
> committing of other database writes (so user actions can be audited even if
> they caus
Well dang! "Magic" just happened.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegr
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Owen Nelson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>>
>> Strictly, it needs to be put on a deprecation path, because it *is*
>> documented, in ref/settings.txt. So the earliest we can truly remove
>> it is in 1.5, after a PendingDep
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Russell Keith-Magee <
russ...@keith-magee.com> wrote:
>
> Strictly, it needs to be put on a deprecation path, because it *is*
> documented, in ref/settings.txt. So the earliest we can truly remove
> it is in 1.5, after a PendingDeprecationWarning in 1.3 and a full
>
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Owen Nelson wrote:
>> Moving forward, I'll be skipping the comment-specific setting and simply
>> setting PROFANITIES_LIST to (). Any chance we'll see the setting removed in
>> the near future?
>
> Yes, it
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Owen Nelson wrote:
> Moving forward, I'll be skipping the comment-specific setting and simply
> setting PROFANITIES_LIST to (). Any chance we'll see the setting removed in
> the near future?
Yes, it's about time we got rid of this $&*@ thing!
(That was too easy.
So, I've been using django for about 2 years now. Last week was my first
time using django.contrib.comments. Needless to say, I was shocked when it
asked me to clean up my language during a late night coding binge (there may
have been drink involved). I searched the docs, unaware there was ever
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Mathieu Leduc-Hamel wrote:
> Greetings Django Developers,
>
> We, Montréal-Python, are the coordinators of the Python track at
> ConFoo 2011 and we are very proud to announce our call for speakers.
>
> PHP-Québec, Montréal-Python, Montreal.rb, W3Qc, and OWASP Montré
Greetings Django Developers,
We, Montréal-Python, are the coordinators of the Python track at
ConFoo 2011 and we are very proud to announce our call for speakers.
PHP-Québec, Montréal-Python, Montreal.rb, W3Qc, and OWASP Montréal are
organizing the first edition of the ConFoo conference, which wi
Neither did I until today. It is understandable that from a use-case
perspective, inlines look less like 'Deletes' and more like
'Disassociates' (from the admin model). Janet thought so in the office
when she nuked a few years worth of survey data, and I think its a
rather blameless mistake. Neverm
I added a new patch with the following changes:
- added get_url() to RequestSite
- added support for protocol to get_url() and template tag site_url.
You can pass a protocol like 'https', default is 'http'.
- updated docs.
I agree with SmileyChris that the template tag site_url doesn't
provide en
Hi all,
I am developing an application which needs to write an audit log to a
database. I want the committing of log records to be independent of the
committing of other database writes (so user actions can be audited even if
they cause errors). So I figured the easiest way to do so would be to
On Oct 6, 3:19 pm, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> something to be said for Luke's position of encouraging people to get
> away from older Python versions by withholding nice features :-)
Amen to that!
Regards,
Vinay Sajip
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gr
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 9:40 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
>
> On Oct 6, 2:29 pm, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
>>
>> > On Oct 6, 11:53 am, Russell Keith-Magee
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Luke Plant wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, 2010-
On Oct 6, 2:29 pm, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
>
> > On Oct 6, 11:53 am, Russell Keith-Magee
> > wrote:
> >> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Luke Plant wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 12:24 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
> > There ar
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
>
> On Oct 6, 11:53 am, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Luke Plant wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 12:24 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
> There are other possibilities. For example, you could use a Filter t
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Luke Plant wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 07:42 -0400, Karen Tracey wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 6:53 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
>> wrote:
>> That approach works (as in - it doesn't raise errors), but it
>> means
>> that under Python 2.4, y
On Oct 6, 11:53 am, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Luke Plant wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 12:24 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
There are other possibilities. For example, you could use a Filter to
add contextual information to the log, as in this example:
Thanks for the help and reviews! I will work on some tests for it. I will
probably need some help with the documentation since English is not my first
language :)
Cesar Canassa
2010/10/5 Gabriel Hurley
> You've got two sets of feedback on the ticket now. Basically the code
> is good but it need
On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 07:42 -0400, Karen Tracey wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 6:53 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
> That approach works (as in - it doesn't raise errors), but it
> means
> that under Python 2.4, you lose any of the "extra" data. In
> particular,
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Luke Plant wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 12:24 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
>> A fourth option would be to include Python's logging module, much as
>> we do with doctest, simpleJSON, and we're about to do with unittest2.
>> It's a heavyweight option, but it
On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 12:24 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> A fourth option would be to include Python's logging module, much as
> we do with doctest, simpleJSON, and we're about to do with unittest2.
> It's a heavyweight option, but it would do the job. We could remove
> the inclusion once we
On 6 October 2010 04:02, Tom Eastman wrote:
> I'm using Django to create an interface for a legacy PostgresQL database.
> The primary keys for my tables use sequences that aren't named the way
> django expects them to be (i.e. '__seq'), this means I can't
> call them AutoFields.
>
>> http://code.
On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 18:53 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> Now, one possibility is to say "Suck it up and upgrade your Python
> version", but I'd rather consider that as a last resort.
I guess that's what I'm rather inclined to say :-) . You could argue
that if we include the Python 2.5 log
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 6:53 AM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> That approach works (as in - it doesn't raise errors), but it means
> that under Python 2.4, you lose any of the "extra" data. In
> particular, it means that
> * it's really hard to do anything interesting with the 4XX series errors,
>
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Luke Plant wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 12:24 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
>> Monkeypatching isn't a particularly attractive option to me - there's
>> just too much .
>>
>> A fourth option would be to include Python's logging module, much as
>> we do with d
On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 12:24 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> Monkeypatching isn't a particularly attractive option to me - there's
> just too much .
>
> A fourth option would be to include Python's logging module, much as
> we do with doctest, simpleJSON, and we're about to do with unittest2.
Sorry, missed your reply somehow,
>
> The line in question, however, should respect subclasses. So your
> example wouldn't fail in the case of a proper subclass.
>
I've heard this claim before,
But per my example above it doesn't. What am I doing wrong there?
--
You received this message because
28 matches
Mail list logo
