On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Waldemar Kornewald
> wrote:
>> That's right. We believe that the long-term advantages of having a
>> common AutoField for everyone outweigh the short-term disadvantage of
>> a few people having to migr
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Waldemar Kornewald
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Waldemar Kornewald
>> wrote:
>>> By not supporting string-based primary keys the MongoDB and SimpleDB
>>> communities will have to maint
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Waldemar Kornewald
wrote:
> On Thursday, June 10, 2010, Dj Gilcrease wrote:
>> Wouldnt an autofield like http://dpaste.com/hold/205665/ work where
>> connection.creation.auto_field_base_type is set to int by default in
>> django/db/backends/creation.py but could
On Thursday, June 10, 2010, Dj Gilcrease wrote:
> Wouldnt an autofield like http://dpaste.com/hold/205665/ work where
> connection.creation.auto_field_base_type is set to int by default in
> django/db/backends/creation.py but could be overridden by an
> individual backend to be str or unicode or w
Wouldnt an autofield like http://dpaste.com/hold/205665/ work where
connection.creation.auto_field_base_type is set to int by default in
django/db/backends/creation.py but could be overridden by an
individual backend to be str or unicode or whatever?
--
You received this message because you are s
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Waldemar Kornewald
> wrote:
>> By not supporting string-based primary keys the MongoDB and SimpleDB
>> communities will have to maintain their own version of all Django apps
>> which are already App Eng
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Waldemar Kornewald
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 2:37 AM, Waldemar Kornewald
w
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Waldemar Kornewald
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 2:37 AM, Waldemar Kornewald
>>> wrote:
Why did you revert the AutoField patch? BTW, in the Dja
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Waldemar Kornewald
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 2:37 AM, Waldemar Kornewald
>> wrote:
>>> Why did you revert the AutoField patch? BTW, in the Django-nonrel
>>> patch you'll find a few other changes which w
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 2:37 AM, Waldemar Kornewald
> wrote:
>> Why did you revert the AutoField patch? BTW, in the Django-nonrel
>> patch you'll find a few other changes which were related to AutoField:
>> ForeignKey needs to find out the actu
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 2:37 AM, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> On Jun 7, 9:35 pm, Alex Gaynor wrote:
>> As you can see the fruits of these efforts have already begun to land
>> in my branch, and I suspect that the multidb refactorings of last year
>> have left us in a better state than
Hi Alex,
On Jun 7, 9:35 pm, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> As you can see the fruits of these efforts have already begun to land
> in my branch, and I suspect that the multidb refactorings of last year
> have left us in a better state than I appreciated: while the concepts
> and data structures used in the
Hey all,
If you saw my email last week you know that my goal for the bulk of
the GSOC work was going to be refactoring the Query class to be less
SQL/relational db specific. After spending much of last week taking a
few different approach at this it's become clear to me that that
approach would r
13 matches
Mail list logo
