On Mar 27, 2010, at 1:08 PM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> Option 3: We modify the existing signals so we have a pre-post pair
> for every signal. This maintains the analog with pre/post save, and
> gives the most control. For example, on Alex Gaynor has suggested to
> me that some people might wa
However I still believe, as a user of the framework, having 2 signals,
before and after, are the best way to go. It is the most intuitive and clear
way to provide this functionality.
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Firat Can Basarir <
firatcanbasa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2010
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> One of the new features in 1.2 are signals on m2m operations [1].
>
> Recently, Ticket #13087 was opened questioning the order in which m2m
> signals are sent. I'm calling for any comments or opinions on exactly
> how this
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 1:15 AM, Andrew Godwin wrote:
> On 28/03/10 00:01, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>>
>> Cache invalidation is a reasonably compelling case for pre-signals; if
>> you invalidate a cache on the post-signal, there is a small window
>> between having modified the m2m and the cache
On 28/03/10 00:01, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
Cache invalidation is a reasonably compelling case for pre-signals; if
you invalidate a cache on the post-signal, there is a small window
between having modified the m2m and the cache being flushed. In that
window, any operation hitting the cache will
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 6:59 AM, Andrew Godwin wrote:
> On 27/03/10 17:08, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>>
>> There are 5 options I can see.
>>
>> Option 1: Do nothing. #13087 describes a use case we don't want to
>> support, so we ignore it.
>>
>
> I think it should be supported; it seems like a re
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 2:52 AM, Andrew Badr wrote:
> Isn't the overhead of a function call negligible compared to executing
> a database query or opening/closing a connection?
It is fairly small, especially if there are not signals attached. When
signals are attached, it's less trivial.
My conc
On 27/03/10 17:08, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
There are 5 options I can see.
Option 1: Do nothing. #13087 describes a use case we don't want to
support, so we ignore it.
I think it should be supported; it seems like a reasonable suggestion,
and I can see reasons for implementing things th
Isn't the overhead of a function call negligible compared to executing
a database query or opening/closing a connection?
On Mar 27, 10:08 am, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> One of the new features in 1.2 are signals on m2m operations [1].
>
> Recently, Ticket #13087 was opened questioni
Hi all,
One of the new features in 1.2 are signals on m2m operations [1].
Recently, Ticket #13087 was opened questioning the order in which m2m
signals are sent. I'm calling for any comments or opinions on exactly
how this feature should operate before the current behavior is baked
into a release
10 matches
Mail list logo
