On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 02:58 -0800, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
> No comments on the more efficient perms/contenttypes implementation?
If you were hoping for something from me, I don't have any time to think
about it. I'm not in the business of predicting the future in a general
sense, beyond things
No comments on the more efficient perms/contenttypes implementation?
I'd really like to know if that is an option because if it's not I
should better make app-engine-patch 1.0 compatible with the less
efficient implementation. Hmm, or I could emulate those db tables in
the backend, but that wouldn
On 14 Feb., 03:08, Malcolm Tredinnick
wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 02:14 -0800, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
> > On 12 Feb., 03:51, Malcolm Tredinnick
> > wrote:
> > > > Is the plan somewhere on the wiki?
>
> > > No, because it's only something I'm pulling together slowly in my head.
>
> > I hope
Seems like my message didn't reach the server. Sending again. Sorry if
you receive this twice.
On 14 Feb., 03:08, Malcolm Tredinnick
wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 02:14 -0800, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
> > On 12 Feb., 03:51, Malcolm Tredinnick
> > wrote:
> > > > Is the plan somewhere on the wi
Basic demand side problem. When an app stands up and solves the real
issues (which, as the DjangoCon presentation proved, there were many)
involving App Engine and Django, then I (and the demographic of
developers I statistically represent) will become excited.
-S
On Feb 6, 9:51 am, David Stengl
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 02:14 -0800, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
> On 12 Feb., 03:51, Malcolm Tredinnick
> wrote:
> > > Is the plan somewhere on the wiki?
> >
> > No, because it's only something I'm pulling together slowly in my head.
>
> I hope you've read my wiki page, so that in the end Django is
On 12 Feb., 03:51, Malcolm Tredinnick
wrote:
> > Is the plan somewhere on the wiki?
>
> No, because it's only something I'm pulling together slowly in my head.
I hope you've read my wiki page, so that in the end Django is flexible
enough to work even with App Engine's limitations (e.g., it's
pra
On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 09:08 -0800, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
> Hi Malcolm,
>
> On 10 Feb., 05:25, Malcolm Tredinnick
> wrote:
> > I have a reasonably fleshed out plan to make things easier here in the
> > Django 1.2 timeframe. The rough idea is that everything under
> > django/db/models/sql/ cou
Hi Malcolm,
On 10 Feb., 05:25, Malcolm Tredinnick
wrote:
> I have a reasonably fleshed out plan to make things easier here in the
> Django 1.2 timeframe. The rough idea is that everything under
> django/db/models/sql/ could be replaced with a module of the developer's
> choosing (probably set vi
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:36 PM, David Larlet wrote:
>
>
> Le 10 févr. 09 à 17:53, Alex Gaynor a écrit :
> > David, I think I mentioned this to you, but I believe that by using
> > the new F() objects we can actually remove the raw SQL entirely, I'd
> > need to put some more thought into this(an
Le 10 févr. 09 à 17:53, Alex Gaynor a écrit :
> David, I think I mentioned this to you, but I believe that by using
> the new F() objects we can actually remove the raw SQL entirely, I'd
> need to put some more thought into this(and perhaps Malcolm already
> has) but it should be possible.
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 10:36 AM, David Larlet wrote:
>
>
> Le 10 févr. 09 à 05:25, Malcolm Tredinnick a écrit :
> > There's also
> > simple enough stuff like removing the last vestiges of raw SQL from a
> > couple of places (most notable related fields, but that should
> > probably
> > go after,
Le 10 févr. 09 à 05:25, Malcolm Tredinnick a écrit :
> There's also
> simple enough stuff like removing the last vestiges of raw SQL from a
> couple of places (most notable related fields, but that should
> probably
> go after, or in tandem with, a rewrite of related fields to clean them
> up i
On Feb 10, 4:25 am, Malcolm Tredinnick
wrote:
> I have a reasonably fleshed out plan to make things easier here in the
> Django 1.2 timeframe.
That's good to know. I see there's already a hook for a custom query
class which would work well as far as querying is concerned, but
doesn't seem to b
Malcolm, Russell, James,
Thanks for taking the time to respond so thoroughly to my questions.
I think that these questions are rooted in the unrealistic idea that
something that
looks like it would be good relationship- or PR-wise is also a good development
priority.
As I expressed, I've simply
On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 03:32 -0800, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
> Hi Russell,
>
> On 6 Feb., 11:34, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> > I would suggest to you that the broader project of "modifying the
> > django.db.models interface to be fully independent of SQL" is much
> > more likely to get core dev
On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 09:51 -0500, David Stenglein wrote:
> I have to ask a question here. Why is there such reticence regarding
> App Engine? It would
> seem to me that App Engine has been a feather in the cap for Django. A
> lot of people don't know Django and at a previous job, I was able to
>
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 11:51 PM, David Stenglein
wrote:
>
> I have to ask a question here. Why is there such reticence regarding
> App Engine? It would
> seem to me that App Engine has been a feather in the cap for Django. A
> lot of people don't know Django and at a previous job, I was able to
>
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 8:51 AM, David Stenglein
wrote:
> I have to ask a question here. Why is there such reticence regarding
> App Engine?
I'm curious as to what reticence you think there is; since, as Russell
said, code to get a straight Django with all features working on App
Engine would be
I have to ask a question here. Why is there such reticence regarding
App Engine? It would
seem to me that App Engine has been a feather in the cap for Django. A
lot of people don't know Django and at a previous job, I was able to
say that "Google chose django" for App Engine to help validate my us
On 6 Feb., 13:10, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> Ok - sounds like they could be some good contributions. I just wanted
> to make sure you were not planning on making the Django wiki the home
> of the "how to use app-engine-patch" documentation.
Hmm, now that you mention it, this sounds like an int
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
>
> Hi Russell,
>
> On 6 Feb., 11:34, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>> I would suggest to you that the broader project of "modifying the
>> django.db.models interface to be fully independent of SQL" is much
>> more likely to get core develop
Hi Russell,
On 6 Feb., 11:34, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> I would suggest to you that the broader project of "modifying the
> django.db.models interface to be fully independent of SQL" is much
> more likely to get core developer support. We (the Django core) will
> be very receptive to any sugg
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
>
> BTW, could someone please activate my "wkornewald" Trac account, so I
> can move the documentation into your wiki?
After I pressed send, something else occurred to me:
Before you starting loading documentation into Django's wiki, ple
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
>
> A native Django port could provide us with a clean, more powerful, and
> more actively developed API for App Engine development. Moreover, it
> could provide a solution for provider lock-in by abstracting the
> underlying API and thus
Hi everyone,
first of all, let me introduce myself. I'm the main developer behind
app-engine-patch which is a port of Django to App Engine:
http://code.google.com/p/app-engine-patch/
Our repository version of Django now even supports the admin interface
and almost all of Django's other features, s
26 matches
Mail list logo
