On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 16:29 -0700, Simon Greenhill wrote:
> The last time we discussed this [1] I think everyone sort of concluded
> that a binary field was a sensible idea as long as it's PRIMARILY for
> storing small chunks of binary info, and not an easy-I-want-to-store-
> binaries-in-my-databa
I don't really have much invested in this topic, but I really think
one of the other topics floating around has a decent approach to this
problem. If FileField and its subclasses had a way to swap out storage
mechanisms, a BLOB could be used internally to store the file data for
a FileField.
This
The last time we discussed this [1] I think everyone sort of concluded
that a binary field was a sensible idea as long as it's PRIMARILY for
storing small chunks of binary info, and not an easy-I-want-to-store-
binaries-in-my-database type of thing.
>From memory, most of the issues in that discus
On 7/30/07, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In my opinion BlobField's need some kind of support inside of Django
> before the coming of 0.97 release.
>
> They have never been officially supported, but they were at least
> usable (as say a TextField) before Unicode. Now they're unusable a
David Cramer wrote:
> In my opinion BlobField's need some kind of support inside of Django
> before the coming of 0.97 release.
>
> They have never been officially supported, but they were at least
> usable (as say a TextField) before Unicode. Now they're unusable as
> you run into encoding/decod
In my opinion BlobField's need some kind of support inside of Django
before the coming of 0.97 release.
They have never been officially supported, but they were at least
usable (as say a TextField) before Unicode. Now they're unusable as
you run into encoding/decoding issues.
--~--~-~--
