On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 5:22:29 PM UTC+10, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
>
> On Monday, August 5, 2013 8:02:52 AM UTC+3, Jani Tiainen wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> You seem to found kind of an issue which happens with GeoDjango part as
>> well. Most of the geodjango operations require quite heavy to/fr
Thanks. I've had a look at GeoDjango and it did help. I've hacked something
that works well enough for my purposes, but it assumes that the default
connection is the one holding the data.
I agree with you that it would be useful if the data mangling/demangling
stage would be more easily overrid
On Monday, August 5, 2013 8:02:52 AM UTC+3, Jani Tiainen wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> You seem to found kind of an issue which happens with GeoDjango part as
> well. Most of the geodjango operations require quite heavy to/from data
> mangling while reading and/or writing data.
>
> Currently there isn't c
Hi,
You seem to found kind of an issue which happens with GeoDjango part as well.
Most of the geodjango operations require quite heavy to/from data mangling
while reading and/or writing data.
Currently there isn't clean solution to tell (per field) how data should be
treated per backend. Djang
