On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 4:25 AM, Tai Lee wrote:
> It's not that hard to just set up a OneToOneField back to User, and
> use signals to automatically create a User when you create your own
> User/Profile. Then you can still make use of 3rd party apps that rely
> on contrib.auth or contrib.sessions,
It's not that hard to just set up a OneToOneField back to User, and
use signals to automatically create a User when you create your own
User/Profile. Then you can still make use of 3rd party apps that rely
on contrib.auth or contrib.sessions, and also make use of groups from
contrib.auth, etc.
Che
It's not just the django.contrib apps you lose, it's any app that uses a
ForeignKey
to users. Which can be a lot of them.
On Friday, February 17, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Jonathan Slenders wrote:
>
> On 16 fév, 13:05, Tom Evans (http://googlemail.com)> wrote:
> > 75 isn't large enough these days f
On 16 fév, 13:05, Tom Evans wrote:
> 75 isn't large enough these days for either email or username. We run
> a patched version of django for some time that has changed both these
> fields to 255 characters in order to accommodate the needs of our
> users. See RFC 3696.
This and other issues made
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
> I know this has been discussed before, but I wanted to bring it up again in
> light of the oncoming Djnago 1.4 beta.
>
> Can we increase the length of the username field in auth.User?
> I think that a max_length of 75 (to match the default E
I created a generic `accounts` app which has (among other things) it's
own `Profile` model with a username field and a OneToOneField pointing
at `User`. I added an authentication backend to my settings that
checks usernames from my model. Of course there are other supporting
components, forms, sign
On 15 February 2012 23:57, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
> 1.5 would work as well ;) Sorry I sometimes speak before I think things
> through,
> thoroughly. django.auth in general is something that i'm interested in and I
> want
> to try and improve to be more flexible, I just hadn't though of a general
>
I and some folks in my area (Boston/Cambridge, MA) are thinking of ways to
provide a solution to this problem that neither requires schema migration
nor breaks backwards compatibility. David, if you (or anyone on this
mailing list) is interested, email me and let's coordinate our efforts.
Alternat
On Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 5:49 PM, James Bennett wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Donald Stufft (mailto:donald.stu...@gmail.com)> wrote:
> > I know this has been discussed before, but I wanted to bring it up again in
> > light of the oncoming Djnago 1.4 beta.
> >
>
>
> So, her
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
> I know this has been discussed before, but I wanted to bring it up again in
> light of the oncoming Djnago 1.4 beta.
So, here's the thing: you're asking for a fairly significant,
massively backwards-incompatible change which requires every D
I know this has been discussed before, but I wanted to bring it up again in
light of the oncoming Djnago 1.4 beta.
Can we increase the length of the username field in auth.User? It is a common
pattern for emails to be used instead of usernames for a site, and 30 characters
makes it difficult to f
11 matches
Mail list logo
