Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Gary Wilson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> a. I am thinking that we should instead keep the ``model`` argument,
>> but make it optional. Then, we ensure that one of ``model`` or
>> ``form_class`` is given. ``form_class``, if given,
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Gary Wilson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a. I am thinking that we should instead keep the ``model`` argument,
> but make it optional. Then, we ensure that one of ``model`` or
> ``form_class`` is given. ``form_class``, if given, would override
> ``model`` or
On Jun 16, 2008, at 2:51 PM, Gary Wilson Jr. wrote:
>
> I was taking a look at the latest patch [1] for #3639 (many thanks to
> Brian Rosner for the hard work), and trying to decide how backwards
> compatible we want to be. (I should also mention that while there has
> been some work done towar
I was taking a look at the latest patch [1] for #3639 (many thanks to
Brian Rosner for the hard work), and trying to decide how backwards
compatible we want to be. (I should also mention that while there has
been some work done towards class-based generic views in #6735 [3], I
believe that #3639
