Re: Django Integration

> The notion that I would now have to use a data store to run my app at all didn't feel right Fortunately, you don't need to. From the docs in the pull request... "It's an optional part of Django; you don't need to interact with it if you're just writing a normal website, but if you want the fe

Re: Django Integration

Correction: *JKM starred (not started) - stupid, stupid iPhone. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-de

Re: Django Integration

To hopefully add to this conversation: I'll start by saying I've enjoyed the contributions by Andrew over the years and believe he is a most excellent developer. A couple months ago, around the same time that JKM started Andrew's repo (which is what got my attention) I decided to give Channels

Re: Django Integration

My preference would be to shift the alpha deadline *without* yet making a firm decision on if channels hits 1.10 or not. That would take a little pressure off, and not force anyone into making a decision prematurely. Moving the window back (say 3 weeks?) and allowing a little more time for the

Re: Django Integration

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 4:54 AM, Andrew Godwin wrote: > My concern around using the Mozilla money to refine it was that it was > applied for under the pretense this would be core Django, though if that's > still our intention and we keep it external for now I don't see too much of > a problem aris

Re: Django Integration

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Tim Graham wrote: > I'm not convinced either way about whether putting this in core will help > mature it and fix bugs more quickly or not. I don't have any sense of how > the code might change after we merge it, but things get more complicated if > we start select

Re: Django Integration

I'm not convinced either way about whether putting this in core will help mature it and fix bugs more quickly or not. I don't have any sense of how the code might change after we merge it, but things get more complicated if we start selectively backporting somes fixes for Django's monthly bug fi

Re: Django Integration

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 9:28 PM, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote: > On Thursday, May 5, 2016, Andrew Godwin wrote: >> >> Do you have a link to the presentation about them removing it? >> > > https://youtu.be/839rskyJaro around 34 minutes and onwards, another > version is https://youtu.be/2dG5HeM7MvA at 24

Re: Django Integration

On Thursday, May 5, 2016, Andrew Godwin wrote: > > Do you have a link to the presentation about them removing it? > https://youtu.be/839rskyJaro around 34 minutes and onwards, another version is https://youtu.be/2dG5HeM7MvA at 24 minutes. They were tackling a bit different problem, so their less

Re: Django Integration

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote: > On Thursday, May 5, 2016, Russell Keith-Magee > wrote: > >> I will admin that I haven’t been paying *close* attention to Andrew’s >> work - I’m aware of the broad strokes, and I’ve skimmed some of the design >> discussions, but I haven’t

Re: Django Integration

On Thursday, May 5, 2016, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > I will admin that I haven’t been paying *close* attention to Andrew’s work > - I’m aware of the broad strokes, and I’ve skimmed some of the design > discussions, but I haven’t been keeping close tabs on things. From that > (admittedly weak) p

Re: Django Integration

FWIW I’m in the same boat as Russell: - limited familiarity with channels: I read the docs cover-to-cover but never ran the code - sufficient trust in their design: I heard Andrew talk about it and I thought it made sense - reasonable confidence that it won’t introduce regressions, including pe

Re: Django Integration

Thank you Russ. I'll reconsider expressing my full thoughts on Channels more likely in another thread. For now I do think it's worth addressing this issue of benchmarks/performance which keeps being brought up. The argument is that since this is optional we don't need to see the benchmarks beca

Re: Django Integration

Hi Mark, On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Mark Lavin wrote: > Major features have never been perfect, no, but they have in the past > typically gone through two paths to prove out their design/API/usefulness. > One is as an established and mature third-party app such as messages, > staticfiles, a

Re: Django Integration

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Tim Graham wrote: > The future is hard to predict, but I'll add that I'm a tad nervous about > this as well. > > I'm completely inexperienced with channels at this time. Who else has a > good grasp of the code right now and could help fix release blocking bugs > if

Re: Django Integration

The future is hard to predict, but I'll add that I'm a tad nervous about this as well. I'm completely inexperienced with channels at this time. Who else has a good grasp of the code right now and could help fix release blocking bugs if Andrew isn't available? Are we playing for any or all bug f

Re: Django Integration

Major features have never been perfect, no, but they have in the past typically gone through two paths to prove out their design/API/usefulness. One is as an established and mature third-party app such as messages, staticfiles, and django-secure. More recently the other has been through the DEP

Re: Django Integration

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Marc Tamlyn wrote: > Major features merged into Django have generally never been as "perfect" > as the standards required for smaller patches. There's a recognisation of > the need for ongoing work, probably over the course of multiple versions, > in order to perfe

Re: Django Integration

Major features merged into Django have generally never been as "perfect" as the standards required for smaller patches. There's a recognisation of the need for ongoing work, probably over the course of multiple versions, in order to perfect any major new feature. The effort involved in getting a pa

Re: Django Integration

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Mark Lavin wrote: > I can (and do) appreciate the effort that's gone into this work while > still feeling as though it isn't ready to be merged with Django. To be > honest given that this PR contains almost no changes to Django itself and > only adds new code, I d

Re: Django Integration

I can (and do) appreciate the effort that's gone into this work while still feeling as though it isn't ready to be merged with Django. To be honest given that this PR contains almost no changes to Django itself and only adds new code, I don't understand why it can't live outside of Django while

Re: Django Integration

I like Markus' suggestion and I think that's in line with how Django handles other optional dependencies such as the db bindings (psycopg2, MySQLdb, etc). Those raise an ImproperlyConfigured exception when there is an import error. The memcache cache backend on the other hand raises an import e

Re: Django Integration

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Mark Lavin wrote: > > > Given that there is no guarantee of message delivery, I don't think this > is suitable or recommended for using for background tasks. I don't think > the Django docs should encourage that usage. At least without a strong > warning that this

Re: Django Integration

On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 12:39:02 PM UTC-4, Andrew Godwin wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 8:26 AM, Mark Lavin > wrote: > >> As noted in the PR there is at least one new setting, >> CHANNEL_SESSION_ENGINE, which is lacking documentation. >> > > That's been added now. > > >> The notes

Re: Django Integration

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Markus Holtermann wrote: > What about having asgiref and daphne as optional dependencies instead of > hard once and raising a proper exception "please install ..." when the > import fails? > > ``` > try: >from asgiref import ... > except ImportError: >rais

Re: Django Integration

What about having asgiref and daphne as optional dependencies instead of hard once and raising a proper exception "please install ..." when the import fails? ``` try: from asgiref import ... except ImportError: raise ImportError( "Please ensure you installed asgiref to use this featu

Re: Django Integration

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 8:26 AM, Mark Lavin wrote: > As noted in the PR there is at least one new setting, > CHANNEL_SESSION_ENGINE, which is lacking documentation. > That's been added now. > The notes on deployment for "Running ASGI under WSGI" don't give any > motivation why you would want to

Re: Django Integration

As noted in the PR there is at least one new setting, CHANNEL_SESSION_ENGINE, which is lacking documentation. The notes on deployment for "Running ASGI under WSGI" don't give any motivation why you would want to do this given that it doesn't support websockets in this case. Is there any advanta

Re: Django Integration

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 6:15 AM, Mark Lavin wrote: > I had assumed this was still a work in progress because there are missing > tests and some documentation. The build is passing but the unittest > coverage for the new modules seems low or at least not up to the standards > I expect for Django co

Re: Django Integration

I had assumed this was still a work in progress because there are missing tests and some documentation. The build is passing but the unittest coverage for the new modules seems low or at least not up to the standards I expect for Django contributions. The same for the daphne and asgiref package

Re: Django Integration

I'm basically slowly fixing the test system failures (mostly because I introduced some new packages); the patch is ready to go code-wise, just need to get it green. Let me fix the current set now and see if that pushes it over the edge. (There are some refinements the patch needs in terms of thing

Re: Django Integration

Hi Andrew, How are things going with the patch [0]? Do you think you might have it ready by next Monday or so, so that I'll have at least a few days to review it before the alpha scheduled for May 16? [0] https://github.com/django/django/pull/6419 On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 7:49:41 PM UTC-5

Re: Django Integration

Hi, about the DRF integration in django I went through the dep and the branch of tom christies work. He shared his opinion as some one should do the work and he will provide guidance. I still have some interest in the REST parts work. If Tom christie/DSF core team allows. Thanks Asif On Satu

Re: Django Integration

My intention is still to get it in - the external library is pretty much at the stable point now, and I'm preparing to brand it 1.0. Once I do that, I'll start work on the Django patch. It's made a bit easier by the fact that the code is four repositories, three of which (asgiref, daphne, and asgi

Re: Django Integration

Hi Andrew, What's your thinking about whether or not any of this will make it into 1.10? The alpha is scheduled for May 16. On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 2:40:05 PM UTC-5, Andrew Godwin wrote: > > Hi Chad, > > The REST framework request feature integration, in particular, has not > started yet;

Re: Django Integration

Hi Chad, The REST framework request feature integration, in particular, has not started yet; Mozilla has been having some issues working out how to pay their various grantees, and from my understanding we still haven't received the grant money yet. Channels is well underway, but that's only becau

Re: Django Integration

Hello, There are more information about the project in the doc page: https://channels.readthedocs.org/en/latest/ El sábado, 5 de marzo de 2016, 1:16:31 (UTC+1), Chad Paulson escribió: > > I was happy to read that part of the Mozilla Open Source Support program > funding that was recently awarded

Django Integration

I was happy to read that part of the Mozilla Open Source Support program funding that was recently awarded to the Django Software Foundation will go toward integrating key components of Django REST Framework into Django. Since I haven't found any update since the initial announcement in Decembe

Re: Ad-hoc Django integration for fault-tolerance

Ah great, well at least now we know it won't happen again :D On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > For those wondering -- I've found out the cause. Google stopped > sending notifications about messages to django-dev awaiting > moderation, so there was a backlog of messages

Re: Ad-hoc Django integration for fault-tolerance

For those wondering -- I've found out the cause. Google stopped sending notifications about messages to django-dev awaiting moderation, so there was a backlog of messages that needed to be moderated. Karen Tracey discovered the backlog this morning, and approved the messages; hence the flood. Your

Re: Ad-hoc Django integration for fault-tolerance

I also got the backlog, in addition my gmail has been buggy and slow for a few days, so I'm assuming it's Google having an issue. On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Russell Keith-Magee < russ...@keith-magee.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 3:47 AM, Alec Taylor > wrote: > > Thanks, hadn't thou

Re: Ad-hoc Django integration for fault-tolerance

On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 3:47 AM, Alec Taylor wrote: > Thanks, hadn't thought to go with NoSQL. :) > > Quick side-note: I received 14 emails on the django-devel list between > 30 and 40 minutes ago. Strange, seeing as this one is dated 10 days > ago. Google Groups problem? You're not the only one

Re: Ad-hoc Django integration for fault-tolerance

Thanks, hadn't thought to go with NoSQL. :) Quick side-note: I received 14 emails on the django-devel list between 30 and 40 minutes ago. Strange, seeing as this one is dated 10 days ago. Google Groups problem? On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Kenneth Reitz wrote: > Enjoy: http://guide.couchdb.

Re: Ad-hoc Django integration for fault-tolerance

Enjoy: http://guide.couchdb.org/draft/why.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/django-developers/-/vQegCKmfVvAJ. To post to this group, send email to

Ad-hoc Django integration for fault-tolerance

I thought of a fun project (if it hasn't been done before). Why don't we build a distributed fault-tolerant architecture with Django? Currently the architecture is MVC, which is logically client-server. The architecture I would like to build up is inspired by PKIs' CA+RA idea. Given the use-cas

[ANN] Babel/Django integration

Hey folks, you may be interested in a contrib package I've added to the Babel repository, which enables using Babel from a Django app. See: It adds middleware and template filters. Also, there's a message extraction plugin for Django templates