Thanks a lot for standing by your list policy here BTW.
On Apr 19, 8:23 pm, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 7:23 AM, Bitrot McGee wrote:
> > Q: When will Django finally have every feature I want?
> > A: "Ambition has its disappointments to sour us, but never the good
> > for
Since you have a PhD in computer science and you're seven years older
than me, and you work for me, for free, while I have exactly zero
computer science credits (or anything related), I think "the
internets" award goes to you.
On Apr 19, 8:23 pm, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010
I think I can play this:
Q: Why is so much valuable time wasted on insulting other people,
instead of making money?
A: "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain
stupid."
Q: Why do folks turn away constructive criticism with a sarcastic
snicker?
A: "None but the well-bred man kno
Jacob, I just refreshed. Please don't kick me. I'm trying to have a
dialogue, and I'm not trolling. Django is my life, and I want to help.
On Apr 19, 11:20 am, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 12:09 PM, orokusaki wrote:
> > Firstly, thanks to Jaco
On a broader note, let me give you a bit of history.
I started my career as a customer service person. I managed Staples
Business Services department in my local Staples. Before I decided to
learn programming a couple years ago at 24, I learned a valuable
lesson:
-- No matter what industry you'r
Firstly, thanks to Jacob for the highly hostile nature of his bedside
manor.
Secondly, I didn't assert anything. I merely referenced the docs (I
suppose this will be another case where you simply adjust the docs to
mirror your recent assertion)
http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/misc/api-stabi
Bennett wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Richard Laager wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 07:55 -0700, orokusaki wrote:
> >> With all respect, you still haven't addressed my main concern: You
> >> told me that it was because of backward compatibility that t
aplan-Moss wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 9:55 AM, orokusaki wrote:
> > With all respect, you still haven't addressed my main concern: You
> > told me that it was because of backward compatibility that this simple
> > change couldn't be put in the trunk. It is backwa
Yes, thank you David.
On Apr 19, 9:38 am, David Zhou wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:19 AM, orokusaki
> > wrote:
> >> The release of Django 1.0 comes with a promise of API stability and
> &
-Moss wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:19 AM, orokusaki wrote:
> > The release of Django 1.0 comes with a promise of API stability and
> > forwards-compatibility. In a nutshell, this means that code you
> > develop against Django 1.0 will continue to work against 1.1
> > u
CURRENT VERSION OF API STABILITY POLICY:
The release of Django 1.0 comes with a promise of API stability and
forwards-compatibility. In a nutshell, this means that code you
develop against Django 1.0 will continue to work against 1.1
unchanged, and you should need to make only minor changes for an
it
breaks.
On Apr 19, 2:17 am, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 1:27 PM, orokusaki wrote:
> > Russell,
>
> > I apologize for the apparent argumentum ad nauseam. I am not trying to
> > be sly. I am just looking for open dialogue about ideas and I feel
&g
Russell,
I apologize for the apparent argumentum ad nauseam. I am not trying to
be sly. I am just looking for open dialogue about ideas and I feel
like the door is closed and caucus is frowned upon. This is the only
way I feel like I can get any floor time. The tickets I create get
closed quickly,
ntribution is much appreciated, the attitude
is harmful to the core team and to the user base.
On Apr 16, 9:31 pm, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 6:02 AM, orokusaki wrote:
> > When I first started posting things on trac, I put up a request that
> > took me an hour t
When I first started posting things on trac, I put up a request that
took me an hour to create, explaining the justification, as well as
putting the code in there. I didn't know how to make a patch, and I
went about it the wrong way, but regardless of that, I put a lot of
thought into it. Less than
Thanks for the replies guys. I'll follow the progress of that ticket.
On Apr 12, 5:38 am, Karen Tracey wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Russell Keith-Magee <
>
>
>
> freakboy3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:15 AM, orokusaki
> &g
ld is hidden like "Account",
I don't necessarily want the client to see it.)
The only idea I have for a solution is:
class Meta:
unique_together = (('account', 'name', 'You already have a
Widget with this Name.'),)
orokusaki
--
You recei
@Everyone who has commented here.
I never intended to cause any animosity and I really appreciate
everything that the core team does for us all.
@Jacob
I really do intend to write code. I make money doing non-Django
development but I love Django so much that I spend 25+ hours a week
not getting
I've been brainstorming (ie, drinking more coffee than I should), and
what I came up with to be the best (IMHO) solution for A) Less
confusion, and B) Less risk of API breakage is:
ModelForm.is_valid(include_all_fields=True)
or
ModelForm.is_all_fields_valid()
and neither are going to be an issu
This is a bit abstract, but I'd like to bring up this idea, and
firstly let me say that I don't intend to waste the time of the major
contributors (unless you want to join in of course). I mostly want to
get an idea of what some of the contributors/feature proposers out
there are thinking of, in a
Russ,
I think you're 100% right, and the "wrong place" part hit the nail on
the head. This morning I got really frustrated because I couldn't
quite see the big picure yet pertaining to the ORM and it's
relationship with ModelForm, partly because there is so much going on
with state changes and you
On Apr 2, 2:00 am, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> The broad goal is certainly reasonable and desirable. It's really a
> matter of finding a way to make it work that doesn't involve
> completely breaking (or disfiguring) the API that we already have.
>
> Yours,
> Russ Magee %-)
I've been working on
Thanks Jacob, I'll give that a try.
On Apr 1, 7:44 am, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 3:11 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
>
> wrote:
> > Melodrama aside, as we've told you before, the docs clearly say that
> > full_clean() isn't called by form.save(). The docs also give you the
> > r
Hey Russ,
I'm not on the model.full_clean stuff anymore, and I apologize for
burning so many cycles on that point when you're in the middle of 1.2
dev. I'm just wondering if what I proposed above sounds reasonable.
The form validation turned off completely for fields that aren't
included makes it
Let me just say that my non-patch above is just an abstract idea, and
I don't know if it will work like that without other changes, but I
think it gets the idea across.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group,
I'm working on an SAAS project, and there is an ``account`` attribute
(foreign key) on every model in the project (similar to those who have
a ``user`` or ``created_by`` attribute on every model). ``account`` is
added to the request object using a MiddleWare class.
When I'm writing views, I have t
Thanks James,
I'll focus on this here and see what I can come up with.
Michael
--
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
On Mar 16, 10:16 am, Harro wrote:
> Just my brainfart when looking at this: Can't you simply add a pre
> save signal to call the full clean method?
>
> Dunno if that will work or not, just the first thing I would try.
>
> On Mar 16, 5:12 pm, James Bennett wrote:
>
Hey James, I've not used sign
On Mar 16, 10:12 am, James Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:36 AM, orokusaki wrote:
> > It doesn't seem that the core team is interested in working on Model
> > validation at the moment:http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/13121
> > (my failed ticket
Strong 1+
It doesn't seem that the core team is interested in working on Model
validation at the moment: http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/13121
(my failed ticket)
The current thinking by the powers that be is that you cannot
introduce model-level validation enforcement without breaking the AP
@James Bennett I was suggesting a new feature. Is it still not
appropriate?
--
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
First, here's the problem I'm having, and then I'll bring up my
request. I have a model that looks like this (using dev version):
class SecretModel(models.Model):
some_unique_field = models.CharField(max_length=25, unique=True)
# Notice this is unique.
class MyModel(models.Model):
secret_
-1
I personally think that DEBUG mode is the only time anything other
than error logging and a 500 page should happen during an exception,
unless done with exception middleware, or in the view. For a template
to include TRY / END, is definately stripping any resembalence to a
MVC architecture from
I don't think that settings are for users. They are for the developer.
The type of settings you are looking for really should be set up as
part of your application. Users can't choose a DB password or your
server's time zone, or which apps are installed. If you're creating an
SAAS you'd be better t
@Jacob Thanks for all the links. I appreciate your reply.
Michael
--
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
djang
@James
Well, I won't even try to argue with that, but there has to be a way
to conquer problems like this in Django without editing the source
code, don't you think?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, se
Problem that exists:
1) I need to subclass `contrib.auth.User` and strip some of the
elements from it, like making `User.username` non-unique for SAAS with
multiple accounts (`MyCustomUser.username` would only be
`unique_together = ('account', 'username')`
(other instances could occur but I don't
Ah, Thanks Russell. I'm new to Django Dev stuff and wasn't aware that
they don't do features for the next version and bugs for the current
beta. That makes more sense though.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this g
Oops. That was me who reported the discussion by accident (iPhone).
Disregard.
--
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 ema
I suppose it was a bit of a question for django users. I apologize for
not explaining that part of it. The reason I approached it that way
wasn't to get a solution (although I would've gladly accepted one over
wanting to change the base) is because I didn't know exactly what to
request for my probl
I'm developing an SAAS which means that I will have Accounts and those
Accounts will have Users. Each account's Users are completely
orthogonal to the Users of another Account. When a user logs in,
they'll supply an Account ID, a username, and a password so username
only needs to be unique with reg
Does anyone have interest in this?
--
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...@googleg
@BrettH This is helpful but only gets me to where I'm currently at. I
understand there are model validators available, and now I understand
why they are the way they are, but what's next?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To p
BTW, I am aware of the ability to create your own custom model field
class with a custom `validate()` method like my following example. I'm
also aware of using a model's clean() method to raise logical
validation errors, like if their email is a gmail address and they
they specify that they are a Y
My idea is probably not unique and Django is already moving in this
direction. I apologize if this is the case.
I have thought for a year, pertaining to Django, about one thing: Why
doesn't validation propagate from the lowest level? Why should this
have to take place at a higher level? What happe
Will do. Piston looks pretty cool.
--
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...@googleg
@Everyone I apologize if I came across as using hyperbole or idiotic.
I never said I was hushed here, not even one time. I was hushed on
code.django and sent here. Yes hushed might be a bit of an
exaggeration, somebody basically closed my ticket and says go get
consensus before reopening a ticket,
Addendum: I might be simply abusing `serialize`. I'm using it as a
Django compatible `json.dumps` in order to provide a JSON API from my
models to my JSON-RPC client. There seems to be no more extensible
way. If this isn't one of the intended uses, let me know and I'll
leave it alone. Again I apolo
-1 I think examples, broken or working, are very helpful for absolute
beginners. Maybe there should be strict warnings about the quality of
the code (in a similar fashion to the ones that warn you when you view
old docs).
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group
Thank you Karen. I've been hushed so many times about this, yet there
seems to be a growing concern (hence the search traffic, and number of
results) about why you can't naturally do this with Django's built-in
serializer.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Grou
Please visit the following URL, and when you do, put your focus into
the search form after "seri" and type the letter "a". You'll notice
the top search for anything related to Django serialization is "Single
Object". This is because people want to have this feature. Serializing
a single object can
51 matches
Mail list logo
