I'm tracking my changes here:
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/535
Currently it is at a very early stage so expect regressions.
Robert
"As soon as I have it" --- it doesn't mean that I am going to do it. It
means "as soon as I get my hands on such implementation", I'll compare it
with existing one and make a decision, which one to use.
And, yes, I'd love to see it too! :-)
Thanks,
Eugene
"Jacob Kaplan-Moss" <[EMAIL PROTECTE
On Sep 19, 2005, at 3:56 PM, Eugene Lazutkin wrote:
I would love to see an application, which looks at my models and
provide
different Admin UI --- current Admin provides all necessary basic
functionality but it would be nice to extend it even more for some
custom
apps. As soon as I have it,
On Sep 19, 2005, at 3:21 PM, HBTaylor wrote:
For example, there are two tickets which come to mind
(http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/337 and
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/338) which deal with things which
work correctly for firlds within admin but which don't for generic
views. There
I would love to see an application, which looks at my models and provide
different Admin UI --- current Admin provides all necessary basic
functionality but it would be nice to extend it even more for some custom
apps. As soon as I have it, I'll compare it with existing Admin application
and form
> Can you explain in more detail how you feel the admin uses "hacks"?
> There's nothing the admin uses that you can't use in the public
> views; it's just that the admin interface is very complex, and so the
> code is very complex.
In my opinion, I don't disagree with the complexity argument. For
On Sep 19, 2005, at 1:42 PM, Robert Wittams wrote:
The parts which I consider to be real hacks are the bits which just
plain don't work in generic views, and require huge messing around in
the view functions. Eg select fields do not pick up their values (
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/338
On 9/19/05, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 19, 2005, at 11:39 AM, Robert Wittams wrote:
> > Well, I'm not an author of the framework, but the admin code is very
> > hard to understand (imo). I'm sure the authors understand it fine, but
> > for open source to instill co
Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 19, 2005, at 11:39 AM, Robert Wittams wrote:
>
>> Well, I'm not an author of the framework, but the admin code is very
>> hard to understand (imo). I'm sure the authors understand it fine, but
>> for open source to instill confidence clarity is key. The adm
On Sep 19, 2005, at 11:39 AM, Robert Wittams wrote:
Well, I'm not an author of the framework, but the admin code is very
hard to understand (imo). I'm sure the authors understand it fine, but
for open source to instill confidence clarity is key. The admin view
should be a great example to djang
> I don't want to alarm anyone or put anyone off django. It is a great
> framework, and that is why I'm using it. I just think we need to be
> clear that it is currently not possible to make stuff similar to the
> admin views without a fair bit of hackery. I hope to obviate this.
Could you explai
Andreas wrote:
>>I think you're misunderstanding. What Robert said was that the code
>>that generates admin views is complex and hard to understand. It
>>really has no effect on use of Django unless you plan to edit the
>>admin-view code for some reason.
>
>
> Don't you think it is a little worr
> I think you're misunderstanding. What Robert said was that the code
> that generates admin views is complex and hard to understand. It
> really has no effect on use of Django unless you plan to edit the
> admin-view code for some reason.
Don't you think it is a little worrying that an interface
On 9/19/05, mrelectron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> that is quite worrying, and if a rewrite is the only solution,
> consensus needs to be obtained from the community on the best way to
> proceed. i am very happy to help.
I think you're misunderstanding. What Robert said was that the code
that g
hi robert:
"the admin views serve almost as a "false advertisement", because they
hack around the framework so much to achieve their impressive
aesthetic"
that is quite worrying, and if a rewrite is the only solution,
consensus needs to be obtained from the community on the best way to
proceed
On 9/19/05, Robert Wittams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My proposed solutions are:
>
> 1) add in some newlines!
> 2) change the whole output philosophy of the admin code to one of
> templates + extensive tag libraries. Minimal fruity output logic in the
> view code.
> 3) fix the manipulators/form
And that wasn't my initial subject line...
I have been attempting to work out what is going on with the admin code
and manipulators.
These are just a few of the features of the admin code:
1) 154 column lines, many of them unreadable. Huge functions, ditto.
2) Writing out templates as massive s
17 matches
Mail list logo
