On Aug 30, 5:21 pm, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> I'd be -1 on having a seperate, restricted API. There is, IMO, no
> reason to have more than one API, any sort of restricted system should
> come in the form of documentation saying what the minimum
> functionality needed for a database backend to support
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
>
> On Aug 28, 1:49 am, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>> To the extent that I'm in a position to provide design guidance and
>> feedback from the perspective of the Django Core, put me on this list
>> too. Time permitting, I might be able
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 2:48 AM, sjtirtha wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm starting using CouchDB with Python.
> Django db models always work with Queries. I can understand this,
> because SQL is a query language.
> However, the non sql DBs do not always have the concept of queries.
> For example, in CouchD
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 2:54 AM, sjtirtha wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> From this point of view, I would propose, to make a new Model that
> supports non SQL DB.
> So developer can decide whether they want to store the object in SQL
> or in non SQL DB.
There are two problems here:
1. You want Django to be
Hi,
I'm starting using CouchDB with Python.
Django db models always work with Queries. I can understand this,
because SQL is a query language.
However, the non sql DBs do not always have the concept of queries.
For example, in CouchDB all CRUD operation is process via HTTP
request.
Create operati
Hi,
I have another requirement for non sql DB support in Django, which I
think will be very applicable.
Most of the current applications do not use 100% non sql DB for the
data storage. Most of them still mix SQL and non SQL DB as data
storage.
Because both of them should not compete against one
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Waldemar
Kornewald wrote:
>
> On Aug 30, 3:50 pm, Andi Albrecht
> wrote:
>> No need to hurry. I'll keep this in sync with the trunk - should be
>> really unproblematic :)
>
> I'm not really doing this just for fun, so I'd rather get it done
> faster. ;)
>
>> Rega
On Aug 30, 3:50 pm, Andi Albrecht
wrote:
> No need to hurry. I'll keep this in sync with the trunk - should be
> really unproblematic :)
I'm not really doing this just for fun, so I'd rather get it done
faster. ;)
> Regarding the App Engine backend: I have some minimal code here for
> the datab
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
>
> On Aug 28, 1:49 am, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>> To the extent that I'm in a position to provide design guidance and
>> feedback from the perspective of the Django Core, put me on this list
>> too. Time permitting, I might be able
On Aug 28, 1:49 am, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> To the extent that I'm in a position to provide design guidance and
> feedback from the perspective of the Django Core, put me on this list
> too. Time permitting, I might be able to contribute some code, too.
Awesome. Could you please provide som
On Aug 29, 8:34 pm, Mike Malone wrote:
> > Do you also intend to contribute some code? You could team up with
> > Mitch on the SimpleDB backend, for example (at least, you seemed to be
> > most interested in that).
>
> Sure.
Great! :)
> [...] I'm afraid that
> emulating the SQL join syntax in g
> Do you also intend to contribute some code? You could team up with
> Mitch on the SimpleDB backend, for example (at least, you seemed to be
> most interested in that).
Sure.
> Some higher-level features like JOINs can be useful *and* practical
> even on non-SQL DBs. Of course, emulated operati
On Aug 28, 10:01 pm, Mike Malone wrote:
> Hey hey,
>
> If we're gunna start talking about a more generic DB API then count me in!
Do you also intend to contribute some code? You could team up with
Mitch on the SimpleDB backend, for example (at least, you seemed to be
most interested in that).
>
Hey hey,
If we're gunna start talking about a more generic DB API then count me in!
For what it's worth, I really think that a basic API that only
supports a few simple operations (get, set, and delete, primarily) is
the way to go. There's not enough commonality between datastores at a
higher le
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 6:01 AM, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
>
> On Aug 27, 11:54 pm, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
>> We also have a few other potential contributors on our list, but right
>> now they're too busy or not ready for contributing, yet:
>> * Thomas Bohmbach (from Giftag)
>> * Curtis Thomps
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 5:54 AM, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
>
> The active contributors currently are:
> * Andi Albrecht (working on email backend support)
> * Thomas Wanschik (my colleague)
> * Waldemar Kornewald (that's me ;)
>
> Since we're all busy guys who can't work full-time on this project
On Aug 27, 11:54 pm, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
> We also have a few other potential contributors on our list, but right
> now they're too busy or not ready for contributing, yet:
> * Thomas Bohmbach (from Giftag)
> * Curtis Thompson (from Giftag)
> * Joe Tyson (maybe you know him? :)
> * Malcolm
Hi Andy,
On Aug 27, 10:25 pm, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hey Waldemar and everyone else, termie here, I'm an App Engine developer and
> worked on the Django Helper library.
> This is something I'm deeply interested in (and many other app engine folk
> agree) and I'd like to work together.
Fantastic! W
Hey Waldemar and everyone else, termie here, I'm an App Engine developer and
worked on the Django Helper library.
This is something I'm deeply interested in (and many other app engine folk
agree) and I'd like to work together.
My initial goals are to get some concrete experiments up so that the pe
Hi Malcolm,
first of all, we'll soon start with a few experiments and since you
wanted to play around with some code, too, could you please tell us
your bitbucket username, so we can give you write access to the
repository?
On Aug 11, 4:07 am, Malcolm Tredinnick
wrote:
> Things like a ListField
On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 03:04 -0700, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
> On Aug 12, 11:40 am, Malcolm Tredinnick
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 02:32 -0700, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
> > > Is there a way to override sql.subqueries?
> >
> > Not yet. As mentioned earlier in the thread, a large chunk of t
On Aug 12, 11:40 am, Malcolm Tredinnick
wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 02:32 -0700, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
> > Is there a way to override sql.subqueries?
>
> Not yet. As mentioned earlier in the thread, a large chunk of the
> process of making non-SQL support is to allow wholesale overriding o
On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 02:32 -0700, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
> On Aug 12, 2:09 am, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
> > > Is the consensus that further refactoring or rethinking of things like
> > > QuerySet and Query are required to make this happen?
> >
> > Not really a consensus - more a general f
On Aug 12, 2:09 am, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> > Is the consensus that further refactoring or rethinking of things like
> > QuerySet and Query are required to make this happen?
>
> Not really a consensus - more a general feeling that there are some
> SQL-specifics that still need to be purged.
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 2:56 AM, mitch wrote:
>
> As a heavy SimpleDB user, I would love to see a way to use Django and
> SimpleDB together and I would certainly be willing to devote time to
> helping make that happen. I think I can contribute on the SimpleDB
> side (boto has supported SimpleDB f
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:49 AM, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
>
> On Aug 11, 10:01 am, Malcolm Tredinnick
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 00:03 -0700, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
>> > And these are just the first few issues we've run into when analyzing
>> > the source.
>>
>> Most of those are the k
As a heavy SimpleDB user, I would love to see a way to use Django and
SimpleDB together and I would certainly be willing to devote time to
helping make that happen. I think I can contribute on the SimpleDB
side (boto has supported SimpleDB for over a year and I'm very
familiar with the service) b
On Aug 11, 10:01 am, Malcolm Tredinnick
wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 00:03 -0700, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
> > And these are just the first few issues we've run into when analyzing
> > the source.
>
> Most of those are the kind of incremental changes that are part of
> making the backend stuff
There is another work on this, apart from
http://code.google.com/p/app-engine-patch/
, which is at http://code.google.com/p/google-app-engine-django/
Regards,
On Aug 10, 12:19 pm, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
> Hi,
> now that 1.1 is out we can finally discuss App Engine support. Is
&g
On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 00:03 -0700, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Aug 11, 1:55 am, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
> > > In conclusion, no on is currently working on, but for all the people
> > > who seem to ask for this I've seen almost no code written, which
> > > suprises me since this i
Hi,
On Aug 11, 1:55 am, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> > In conclusion, no on is currently working on, but for all the people
> > who seem to ask for this I've seen almost no code written, which
> > suprises me since this is something that can exist 100% external to
> > Django (and probably should
On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 22:31 -0500, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Malcolm
> Tredinnick wrote:
> > The only that seems to be possibly *required* to be changed in Django to
> > support app-engine as a storage backend is the ManyToManyField change (I
> > say "possibly" be
On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 10:58 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
[...]
> This one is slightly topical. Alex has a github branch that refactors
> the m2m code to get the SQL out of the related field model [1]. In
> order to do this, it introduces a dummy model for m2m fields. This is
> needed for Alex
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Malcolm
Tredinnick wrote:
> The only that seems to be possibly *required* to be changed in Django to
> support app-engine as a storage backend is the ManyToManyField change (I
> say "possibly" because I haven't thought around the issue much, so don't
> know if ther
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Malcolm
Tredinnick wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 05:19 -0700, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
>> Hi,
>> now that 1.1 is out we can finally discuss App Engine support. Is
>> anyone planning to work on this feature or working on it for r
On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 05:19 -0700, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
> Hi,
> now that 1.1 is out we can finally discuss App Engine support. Is
> anyone planning to work on this feature or working on it for real or
> are there just announcements that someone might consider doing it?
&g
t;> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >> now that 1.1 is out we can finally discuss App Engine support. Is
>> >> anyone planning to work on this feature or working on it for real or
>> >> are there just announcements that someone might consider doing it?
>
On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 07:55 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Waldemar Kornewald
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >> now that 1.1 is out we can finally discus
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Waldemar Kornewald
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> now that 1.1 is out we can finally discuss App Engine support. Is
>> anyone planning to work on this feature or working on
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
>
> Hi,
> now that 1.1 is out we can finally discuss App Engine support. Is
> anyone planning to work on this feature or working on it for real or
> are there just announcements that someone might consider doing it?
>
&g
Hi,
now that 1.1 is out we can finally discuss App Engine support. Is
anyone planning to work on this feature or working on it for real or
are there just announcements that someone might consider doing it?
BTW, I've reworked the mini-spec a little bit to improve id/key_name
handling. Here&
41 matches
Mail list logo
