n Saturday, August 25, 2012 9:35:02 PM UTC+2, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
>
> I have done some more ORM refactoring work. I thought it would be a
> good idea to post a summary of what is going on.
>
> First, I haven't committed the utils.tree refactoring patch I was
> planning to co
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> My view is these things are 100% undocumented, 100% internal, anyone using
> them is 100% on their on. Simply put, if we can't make changes to these APIs
> without having to worry, what's the point in having a backwards
> compatibility policy?
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Anssi Kääriäinen
> wrote:
> > I'd like to postpone these to early next month so that I have more
> > time to help in reviews and pushing some new features in. Other
> > options are postponing review work,
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Anssi Kääriäinen
wrote:
> I'd like to postpone these to early next month so that I have more
> time to help in reviews and pushing some new features in. Other
> options are postponing review work, and postponing these patches to
> 1.6.
As long as the changes are i
On 25 elo, 22:35, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
> I have done some more ORM refactoring work. I thought it would be a
> good idea to post a summary of what is going on.
>
> First, I haven't committed the utils.tree refactoring patch I was
> planning to commit [https://github.com/aka
Anssi,
I just got back from holiday. I hope to be able to review at least some
of these patches within the next 2 weeks. If you don't hear from me in
that time, I'd encourage you to carry on anyway.
Thanks,
Luke
On 25/08/12 20:35, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
> I have done some more OR
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Anssi Kääriäinen
wrote:
> I have done some more ORM refactoring work. I thought it would be a
> good idea to post a summary of what is going on.
>
> First, I haven't committed the utils.tree refactoring patch I was
> planning to commit
I have done some more ORM refactoring work. I thought it would be a
good idea to post a summary of what is going on.
First, I haven't committed the utils.tree refactoring patch I was
planning to commit [https://github.com/akaariai/django/commits/
refactor_utils_tree]. The reason is that
On 10/10/2011 04:59 PM, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
In the perfect world you could have a SQLA backend, or qs.as_sqla()
method. That would be neat, yes. QuerySet chaining could be hard to
implement, though (or does SQLA have support for something like
that?). But in my opinion this is another argumen
o know if there is support
> for ORM refactoring.
I am not sure the "wrapper around SQLAlchemy" idea is at all feasible,
for any number of reasons; it's certainly not an idea that should hold
up other improvements.
I do think there are parts of the ORM that could really benefit from
On Oct 10, 4:13 pm, Luke Plant wrote:
> One of the problems is that it can be very hard to review refactorings.
> For example, I recently checked in rev 16929 [1] from ivan_virabyan's
> patch, and reviewing it was hard, despite the fact that it was a very
> good quality patch. The difficulty is
decide that the ORM
> is just fine now, or that there are higher importance items. Before
> continuing my hacking, it would be nice to know if there is support
> for ORM refactoring.
It was me who suggested the idea of basing the ORM on SQLAlchemy in
future, on my blog [2]. It would be
it a wrapper around SQLAlchemy
> (I saw this mentioned somewhere some time ago). Or decide that the ORM
> is just fine now, or that there are higher importance items. Before
> continuing my hacking, it would be nice to know if there is support
> for ORM refactoring.
>
> Thank you f
. Before
continuing my hacking, it would be nice to know if there is support
for ORM refactoring.
Thank you for your time,
- Anssi Kääriäinen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email
14 matches
Mail list logo