On 1/13/07, mfremont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've been working on my first non-trivial Django app using newforms
and, in general, I found it much easier to work with than the
forms/manipulators from 0.95.
Is this the right place to offer detailed feedback?
definitely
I have some
specific
I've been working on my first non-trivial Django app using newforms
and, in general, I found it much easier to work with than the
forms/manipulators from 0.95.
Is this the right place to offer detailed feedback? I have some
specific comments about the API, which include some suggestions for
impro
On 12/26/06, Honza Král <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
there could be an initial_value parameter for Fields... I have
implemented it as part of the default parameter, I am still waiting
for any feedback, one of the solutions to that problem (see the post
in this group [0]) would be to split the beha
On Dec 27, 1:43 pm, limodou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd like a dict to hold the default values, so we can get then from a
instance or somewhere easily, but not set each field a default value.
for example, the new forms __init__.py can has a defaultvalues
parameter is a dict. When it will be r
there could be an initial_value parameter for Fields... I have
implemented it as part of the default parameter, I am still waiting
for any feedback, one of the solutions to that problem (see the post
in this group [0]) would be to split the behaviour between
initial_value -- something to display
On 12/27/06, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/26/06, Honza Kr l <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have
> implemented it as part of the default parameter, I am still waiting
> for any feedback
Giving feedback for that is on my to-do list as I read through several
hundred Google Grou
On 12/26/06, Honza Král <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have
implemented it as part of the default parameter, I am still waiting
for any feedback
Giving feedback for that is on my to-do list as I read through several
hundred Google Groups messages...Thanks for your patience so far!
Adrian
--
Ad
On 12/19/06, Alan Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1. It would be nice if EmailField and URLField had max_length attributes.
OK, I've added this in changeset [4241].
2. When I tried to specify an empty label, with label='', I get the
automatically generated label.
Ah, I didn't anticipate p
On 12/27/06, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/25/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2. Sometimes its very important for me to show some initial values in
> form, on 'Add' screen. Typical
> example, is a form, where customer can specify a different First,Last
> Nam
On 12/25/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2. Sometimes its very important for me to show some initial values in
form, on 'Add' screen. Typical
example, is a form, where customer can specify a different First,Last
Name and Email address. If
I pass data=xxx to form constructor, it
Hi, i just took a look at newforms, and the Lack of Function/Method
based Validators makes my work harder.
I'd like to see an Interface where i could define any Number of
Form-methods beginning with "clean_fieldname_" to define multiple
custom Validators for some Fields, as well as more than one
Hi!
I have reimplemented my project to use django.newforms. At all, I
conclude that newforms saved some of my time and its a good tool
already.
But since its a alpha only I had a few troubles and few things which I
think are good to change.
1. At first, I already mailed this mailing list about
Hi Adrian,
I've been using newforms to implement a short form. Generally, it's
been a smooth ride, and I appreciate the flexibility and simplicity of
rendering compared to the old way. Between the doco, the examples in
the test case and the code, using it was straightforward too.
I have just thr
Adrian Holovaty wrote:
>> but you *can* do that now, the only difference between what is now and
>> what you are proposing is that you call validators, what are now
>> Fields and you would call it
>> CharField( validators=[USState, IsAllUpperCase] )
>> where you can now write
>> ComboField( CharFi
On 12/15/06, Honza Král <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why not just have a CharField and a USState validator and an IPaddress4
> > validator. That way you have a USState validator to apply to other
> > fields as well.
>
> but you *can* do that now, the only difference between what is now and
> wha
On 12/16/06, Gary Doades <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> > Ah, but we *will* have USStateField and USStateField field -- I just
> > haven't written those Field classes yet. :)
> >
>
> Why not just have a CharField and a USState validator and an IPaddress4
> validator. That w
Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> Ah, but we *will* have USStateField and USStateField field -- I just
> haven't written those Field classes yet. :)
>
Why not just have a CharField and a USState validator and an IPaddress4
validator. That way you have a USState validator to apply to other
fields as wel
Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> If the argument is "It violates DRY to have to create a Field subclass
> just to handle an existing validator," I'm not sure that argument
> flies, because we will eventually have a Field for every validator.
> Ideally, validators wouldn't even *exist* anymore, as Fields c
On 12/10/06, Benjamin Slavin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) I think that ComboField is a great idea, but I don't think it
> handles all use cases gracefully. There's a rich collection of
> validators that have been created that would not be easily accessible
> if we have to use ComboField or cre
Gary Wilson wrote:
> I am also a fan of validator_list. As someone mentioned earlier, it is
> sometimes preferable to have two levels of data validation, at the form
> level and the model level. I have several cases where I have multiple
> forms that save to the same model in some way but use di
Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> On 12/8/06, Gary Doades <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Also, how can I pass a validator_list to get similar functionality to
> > manipulators? Having the ability to supply a validator_list containing
> > a list of small single purpose validators is quite nice. Have I misse
Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> Hey Gary,
>
> Great suggestion! Based on your idea, I've just checked in an extra
> hook, Field.widget_attrs(), which lets a Field specify any HTML
> attributes to add to its Widget. I've implemented the maxlength
> attribute for CharField, so your example can be rewritt
Honza Král wrote:
>> Also, how can I pass a validator_list to get similar functionality to
>> manipulators? Having the ability to supply a validator_list containing
>> a list of small single purpose validators is quite nice. Have I missed
>> something?
>
> you can subclass the Field class and add
On 12/8/06, Gary Doades <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm just starting to contsruct a form or two with the newforms package.
> It works very nicely. However I have a couple of points so far:
>
> It would be nice for the CharField field to output a "maxlength"
> attribute if the max_length paramete
On 12/8/06, Gary Doades <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm just starting to contsruct a form or two with the newforms package.
> It works very nicely. However I have a couple of points so far:
>
> It would be nice for the CharField field to output a "maxlength"
> attribute if the max_length paramet
I'm just starting to contsruct a form or two with the newforms package.
It works very nicely. However I have a couple of points so far:
It would be nice for the CharField field to output a "maxlength"
attribute if the max_length parameter is set. Otherwise we have to do
this:
name =
CharField(ma
26 matches
Mail list logo
