On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Vivek Narayanan wrote:
>>> When you start dealing with foreign keys and m2m, you have an
>>> additional set of assumptions --
>>>
>>> * How far should I traverse relations?
>>
>> The user can specify a
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Vivek Narayanan wrote:
>> I think I see where you're going here. However, I'm not sure it
>> captures the entire problem.
>>
>> Part of the problem with the existing serializers is that they don't
>> account for the fact that there's actually two subproblems to
>>
Hi Russ,
Thanks for the long reply and all the suggestions. My comments are
inline.
> What if you need to support both? e.g.,
>
>
> the bar value
>
>
> It seems to me that you would be better served providing a way to
> annotate each individual metadata value as (and I'm bikeshedding a
> nam
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Vivek Narayanan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is my proposal for the customizable serialization idea:
>
> There are two formats - A formatted Google Docs version that's easy on
> the eyes (
> https://docs.google.com/a/vivekn.co.cc/document/pub?id=1GMWW42sY8cLZ2XRtVEDA9BQz
On 17/03/11 07:47, Vivek Narayanan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is my proposal for the customizable serialization idea:
Hi Vivek - sorry about the long reply-wait on this! My initial thoughts
are below.
> The user can define methods beginning with “meta_” to add metadata
> about each field. And function
