"Todd O'Bryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, this will be slower than having Apache serve the file directly,
> but it has the huge advantage that the file is served as the result
> of a view. That means you can do all kinds of interesting permission
> checking, url mapping, and general
On Sat, 2006-08-05 at 22:07 -0400, Todd O'Bryan wrote:
> On Aug 5, 2006, at 8:12 PM, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
>
> >> Yes, this will be slower than having Apache serve the file directly,
> >> but it has the huge advantage that the file is served as the result
> >> of a view. That means you can do
On Aug 5, 2006, at 8:12 PM, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
>> Yes, this will be slower than having Apache serve the file directly,
>> but it has the huge advantage that the file is served as the result
>> of a view. That means you can do all kinds of interesting permission
>> checking, url mapping, an
On Sat, 2006-08-05 at 15:54 -0400, Todd O'Bryan wrote:
> It seems that requests for some way to store binary data in the
> database is a perennial request. I've seen comments (I think Adrian
> said it "opens a can of mutated worms."), but never a real
> discussion of what the problems would
It seems that requests for some way to store binary data in the
database is a perennial request. I've seen comments (I think Adrian
said it "opens a can of mutated worms."), but never a real
discussion of what the problems would be.
There's a recent ticket, #2417, that adds support for "sm
