SmileyChris wrote:
> On Aug 30, 11:47 pm, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 19:01 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>>> On 8/30/07, SmileyChris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It has always made me wonder why it isn't even overridable. Is there a
design
It should probably be 320, and if there are any databases that don't
support a field that long, it should be reduced to accomodate those
databases (only), rather than holding everything back for the lowest
common denominator?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received thi
On Aug 30, 11:47 pm, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 19:01 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> > On 8/30/07, SmileyChris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > It has always made me wonder why it isn't even overridable. Is there a
> > > design decision behind this
Just as a data point, I've only run into this issue exactly one time.
The guy had an 80-character email address.
It was kind of a pain to have to override everything everywhere in my
production app, but I only had to do it once, so... it's not too high
on my list of things that have ever annoyed
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 19:01 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> On 8/30/07, SmileyChris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > It has always made me wonder why it isn't even overridable. Is there a
> > design decision behind this or has it just never been asked?
>
> I don't see why it needs to be con
On 8/30/07, SmileyChris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It has always made me wonder why it isn't even overridable. Is there a
> design decision behind this or has it just never been asked?
I don't see why it needs to be configurable. Email have a fixed finite
maximum length - it isn't something t
It has always made me wonder why it isn't even overridable. Is there a
design decision behind this or has it just never been asked?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post
Hi all,
I've a question, why max. size of User.email field is set to 75
characters,
if RFC 2821 limits local part to 64 characters and domain to 255.
With '@' it is together 320 chars.
Should not be this field extended?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this me
