Re: Welcome email

2020-11-13 Thread Andrew Godwin
ite my own script to mash the APIs over HTTP) Andrew On Sun, Nov 8, 2020, at 2:36 PM, Andrew Godwin wrote: > I have been moving house this week (plus, yknow, the election) so I haven't > got anything done, but hope to poke at it early next week! > > Andrew > > On Sun, Nov 8,

Re: Revisiting Python support for after Django 3.2 LTS

2020-11-19 Thread Andrew Godwin
I agree we should not be quite so beholden to our existing Python version policy - that was mostly to get us out of the early 3.x era. Now things are more stable, I'd support a policy that is much more like "any stable version of Python currently out there and supported". Andrew -- You receiv

Re: Do people actually squash migrations?

2021-05-11 Thread Andrew Godwin
Migration squashing was always meant to be something that was useful in a rapid development environment where you can't control all the installs (since it was a feature developed alongside a CMS run by many clients at the time). If you have control of all the places your project is installed and

Re: deconstruct returns 3-tuple?

2021-09-18 Thread Andrew Godwin
As the note in that section explains, that is for custom *classes*, not for custom *fields*. Your observation is correct when applied to field deconstruction methods, but not for the system talked about there which lets you do it for arbitrary classes (as part of the values in field desconstruc

Re: Automatic prefetching in querysets

2017-08-17 Thread Andrew Godwin
Just some quick thoughts, as most of the points I would bring up have been discussed: - This should definitely be opt-in for the first release, it's too big a change to make opt-out straight away. - You should be able to turn it on/off per model, probably in Meta, not in a setting, and obviously

Re: Default to BigAutoField

2017-08-17 Thread Andrew Godwin
To elaborate on the solution we eventually came up with - we default models to use a new BigAutoField that migrations will pick up on and generate migrations to alter columns to, but for safety reasons for those that don't read release notes, made the migration autodetector ask you if you want to m

Re: Default to BigAutoField

2017-08-18 Thread Andrew Godwin
see any other solutions that aren't settings doing spooky-action-at-a-distance to primary keys, and that's something I really don't want to see. Andrew > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 02:43:07PM -0700, Andrew Godwin wrote: > >> To elaborate on the solution we eventual

Re: Adding a tutorial for Channels

2018-02-05 Thread Andrew Godwin
I would very much welcome a narrative tutorial like the Django docs - I did not have the time to personally write and QA one before the 2.0 release, unfortunately. I'm happy to help out if you want to email me personally to discuss! Andrew On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 10:39 PM, David Foster wrote: >

Re: binding framework third-party package for Channels 2

2018-02-17 Thread Andrew Godwin
Hi Daniel, It was something I was going to do myself once I had the time and the release support for 2.0 dies down, but if you want to take a crack at it, please do (I am more than happy to consult where I can). Andrew On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 1:13 PM, Daniel Gilge wrote: > Hi, > > I'm not sure

Re: Thoughts on diff-based migrations with django?

2018-02-20 Thread Andrew Godwin
Hi, This was an approach we deliberately avoided during development of the current migration system - it works poorly with diverging feature branches and requires that your developers have access to production schema at all times (and additionally that you don't have divergent production/staging/Q

Re: maximum number of connection using django-channels

2018-03-20 Thread Andrew Godwin
rking on convincing our team that we should change our > deployment model from its initial prototype but there is not a lot of > perceived value in that effort at the moment. > > Thanks! > > > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 11:26:18 AM UTC-6, Andrew Godwin wrote: >> &g

Re: Threads and requests with Channels 2.0

2018-03-20 Thread Andrew Godwin
Hi Jonathan, Daphne runs a single asyncio event loop in the main thread which services all protocol handling (low-level HTTP and websocket) and Channels-level async-native code (ASGI middleware, routing, async consumers). Any synchronous calls (e.g. methods on synchronous consumers) are queued up

Re: Channels - Groups and discovery

2018-03-24 Thread Andrew Godwin
Nobody else has suggested this particular approach yet, and while it would definitely make writing applications much more reliable, there's no particularly easy way to distribute an interface that I can think of (even the ASGI specification ends up being enforced on the receiver side, though ultima

Re: Channels - Groups and discovery

2018-03-25 Thread Andrew Godwin
I can understand what might and might not be possible at each layer > before proposing any specific ideas. > > There's some fantastic stuff in channels though, and was fairly easy to > hook things together after reading the docs. I'm looking forward to using > it more. > >

A Django Async Roadmap

2018-06-04 Thread Andrew Godwin
Hello everyone, For a while now I have been working on potential plans for making Django async-capable, and I finally have a plan I am reasonably happy with and which I think we can actually do. This proposed roadmap, in its great length, is here: https://www.aeracode.org/2018/06/04/django-async

Re: A Django Async Roadmap

2018-06-04 Thread Andrew Godwin
> > > I think getting rid of the related field references could be a big issue > here and cause a lot of headaches for existing applications. Could we do > this in a backwards compatible way at all? I wonder if PEP 567 > could help here, could we > define

Re: A Django Async Roadmap

2018-06-08 Thread Andrew Godwin
Chaim: For references to get up to speed on async concepts, there's not a lot of great beginner-level stuff out there. I have a practical guide to async functionality at https://www.aeracode.org/2018/02/19/python-async-simplified/, but it's not great at going into detail on Web stuff and why it has

Re: A Django Async Roadmap

2018-06-09 Thread Andrew Godwin
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 11:31 PM Josh Smeaton wrote: > > The only real concern I have at the moment is around your comments > regarding on demand foreign key traversal. If existing code running > synchronously is going to be impacted, that's going to be very difficult > for a lot of people. If it'

Re: WebSocket connection failed: error during WebSocket handshake: Unexpected response code: 200

2018-06-24 Thread Andrew Godwin
Hi - this mailing list is for the development of Django itself. You already posted on django-users (the right one) - please don’t double-post! I’ll get around to replying to that other one in a day or two. Andrew On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 at 18:36, wrote: > Hi I am deploying a website with a live di

Re: django channels test authorization with live server

2018-07-13 Thread Andrew Godwin
Hi, this is the mailing list for the development of Django itself. I suspect you will instead want to ask a question like this to the django-users list! Andrew On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 5:37 AM Piotrek eF wrote: > Hello, > > Normally, when I launch runserver, and login to admin site, I can open j

Re: Django Channels doesn’t conform to Django middleware specifications

2018-08-28 Thread Andrew Godwin
Django documentation, which states that middleware’s __init__() is only >>>called *once*, on server startup. >>>2. Any middleware which performs more-than-trivial work in its >>>__init__() causes massive latency on any incoming request. >>> >&g

Re: Requiring sqlparse for sqlite introspection

2018-10-08 Thread Andrew Godwin
Adding sqlparse into the introspection code for SQLite specifically means it's going to be a runtime dependency for anything to do with migrations. I'm alright having that be the case, but I do think we should make sure the tests run with SQLite as otherwise a large section of the most complicated

Re: Reactive frontend using Django templates?

2018-11-21 Thread Andrew Godwin
Hi Brylie, There are no such efforts at the moment - Django is still focused on being a backend language for the most part, and we don't really have any of the pieces in place to do dynamic template rendering. We're more focused on providing the fundamental components to let other people build tha

Potential suspension of Channels development

2019-01-17 Thread Andrew Godwin
Hi all, I'm writing to you all to update you on the current situation of Channels and related libraries (channels-redis and Daphne) and potentially ask for help. I've been the sole maintainer of these projects for quite a while and it has become unsustainable - all of my energy is taken up fieldi

Re: Potential suspension of Channels development

2019-01-17 Thread Andrew Godwin
y and I'll outline what's needed. Andrew On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 10:10 AM Nasir Hussain wrote: > Hi andrew, I can help in maintaining the projects. Kindly let me know what > are the next steps. > > Thanks > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2019, 11:07 PM Andrew Godwin >> Hi all, &

Re: Potential suspension of Channels development

2019-01-20 Thread Andrew Godwin
On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 12:13 PM Carlton Gibson wrote: > Hey Andrew. > > I've been thinking a lot about this. You clearly shouldn't be maintaining > Channels single-handedly indefinitely. > > I know Channels started out separately, but, it's time to think about > what, if anything of channels, is

Re: Potential suspension of Channels development

2019-01-21 Thread Andrew Godwin
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:34 AM Michael Martinez < writemichaelmarti...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Andrew > > To me, Websockets is the defining use case for using Django Channels. From > a user POV, saying that Channels is focused on the wrong problem > (websockets) is like saying Django is too focuse

Re: Potential suspension of Channels development

2019-01-30 Thread Andrew Godwin
tching all the repos come Feb 1st, and barring positive confirmation someone else is going to actively take over I'll put up notices on all the projects that they are actively unmaintained apart from security issues. Andrew On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 10:06 AM Andrew Godwin wrote: > Hi all,

Re: Potential suspension of Channels development

2019-01-31 Thread Andrew Godwin
for now, so if you really need me try that, but I may turn that off if it turns out to be too much. Thanks all who came forward. I'm hopeful that things can be kept going! Andrew On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:18 PM Andrew Godwin wrote: > Just to update on this - nobody has individually come

Re: Post mortem on today's packaging error.

2019-02-11 Thread Andrew Godwin
I also ran into this several times while releasing Channels - several releases had the wrong files ship out in them due to Git weirdness. In the end, my solution was to build the release artifacts over on Travis to guarantee a fresh build environment each time, but I doubt that would work for Djan

Re: Proposal to format Django using black

2019-04-14 Thread Andrew Godwin
We've used Black for the Channels/ASGI projects for about the last year, and I have nothing but good opinions on it from that perspective. It's made pull requests much easier to get formatted, because fixing it is just a case of running a single command (and if you do the right pre-commit hook, you

First ASGI pull request is ready for review

2019-04-24 Thread Andrew Godwin
Hi everyone, Just wanted to drop a note and say that the first pull request in the series needed to enable async in Django is now ready for review: https://github.com/django/django/pull/11209 This is a very minimal amount of work to get Django async-safe and understanding ASGI as an application i

Re: Proposal to format Django using black

2019-04-30 Thread Andrew Godwin
Hi all, As per the DEP process, I have merged DEP 8, Formatting Code With Black, into the DEP repo as a draft. This doesn't mean it's decided yet - any DEP that meets quality requirements gets merged as a draft - but it means that we're one step closer to doing so. What follows is further discuss

Re: A different approach for the auto-reloader

2019-04-30 Thread Andrew Godwin
>From my read this also looks like it would make the auto-reloader able to work a lot better with an async-capable server, so I would be in favour given that is likely in the future as well. Andrew On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 9:33 PM Ramiro Morales wrote: > Hi all, > > I had a stab at a somewhat si

Re: First ASGI pull request is ready for review

2019-04-30 Thread Andrew Godwin
So, it looks like most of the comments on this PR have happened and been resolved - unless anyone has any objections, I will merge it in after a couple more days (just in time for PyCon US). Andrew On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 1:50 PM Andrew Godwin wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Just wanted

Re: First ASGI pull request is ready for review

2019-04-30 Thread Andrew Godwin
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 11:34 PM Mariusz Felisiak < felisiak.mari...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for this patch. Can you add a trac ticket? also Can you give me & > Carlton few days for review? I should be able to do this somewhere in the > next week. > I can indeed. I wasn't sure if you wanted to

Re: First ASGI pull request is ready for review

2019-05-01 Thread Andrew Godwin
d where people might input. There’s >> massive interest. 🙂 >> >> Great work as ever Andrew. Thank you so much! >> >> C. >> >> On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 08:46, Andrew Godwin wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 11:34 PM

Django Async DEP

2019-05-09 Thread Andrew Godwin
Hello everyone, While the ASGI patch (https://github.com/django/django/pull/11209) is maybe the first small step in a long road to async, it's the only real one we could do without a DEP as it purely pulls on existing specs and bugs. To that end, I have drafted a DEP (provisionally #0009), "Async

Re: Django Async DEP

2019-05-09 Thread Andrew Godwin
I would agree with both of you - I think the most important thing is to get the view layer async-capable, as that then lets sites use any manner of asynchronous libraries that already exist to get experiments and unique things going. Tom Christie, for example, has already started work on an asynchr

Re: Django Async DEP

2019-05-09 Thread Andrew Godwin
> Slightly off-topic but once we have an async ORM, making it synchronous is not impossible (I believe either Channels or Daphne already have shims that use a worker thread to spin the event loop until a future is fulfilled). This is in fact the proposed way to make the ORM work with both sync and

Re: Django Async DEP

2019-05-09 Thread Andrew Godwin
On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 1:04 PM Aymeric Augustin < aymeric.augus...@polytechnique.org> wrote: > Hello Andrew, > > Thanks for your work putting together this plan. Within our constraints, > it's a good plan. > > Regarding templating, I would say it isn't a priority because a developer > who knows ho

Re: Django Async DEP

2019-05-09 Thread Andrew Godwin
> > I don't think it makes a significant difference from a readability > perspective in this example. It does have some advantages, though: > > - It could be easier to implement a sync version based on the async one, > or vice-versa, if each one has its own class. It will probably be more DRY. > -

Re: Django Async DEP

2019-05-09 Thread Andrew Godwin
On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 2:15 PM Patryk Zawadzki wrote: > I don't think it makes a significant difference from a readability >> perspective in this example. It does have some advantages, though: >> >> - It could be easier to implement a sync version based on the async one, >> or vice-versa, if each

Re: Django Async DEP

2019-05-09 Thread Andrew Godwin
On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 2:44 PM KimSia Sim wrote: > I have a question that strays slightly away from the main topic. I have > looked at Tom's repos. Is it encode/databases > https://github.com/encode/databases that you're referring to? > > Or do you mean Tom's working on an async ORM that works wi

Re: Django Async DEP

2019-05-10 Thread Andrew Godwin
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 3:51 AM Asif Saif Uddin wrote: > I have a separate question. Is it possible to get the django 3.0 asgi > things into a different package to use with django 2.2? > > Thanks for the great work. > > Unfortunately not - this is covered a little in the section in the DEP that s

DEP 0008 (Formatting using Black) is accepted

2019-05-10 Thread Andrew Godwin
Hi everyone, The Technical Board has voted on DEP 0008 ( https://github.com/django/deps/blob/master/accepted/0008-black.rst), after the extensive discussion here and the updates done as a result. The board voted in favour, and so I've moved the DEP into the accepted directory. One of the key cha

Re: DEP 0008 (Formatting using Black) is accepted

2019-05-10 Thread Andrew Godwin
ht now! Andrew On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 6:46:37 PM UTC-7, Andrew Godwin wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > The Technical Board has voted on DEP 0008 ( > https://github.com/django/deps/blob/master/accepted/0008-black.rst), > after the extensive discussion here and the updates done as

Re: Django Async DEP

2019-05-14 Thread Andrew Godwin
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 4:31 AM Tobias Kunze wrote: > Hi Andrew (and everybody following the discussion, of course), > > First off, thank you for your work here. DEP9 is an excellent technical > document, and it was as easy and pleasant to read as a document of this > scope and depth can be. > >

Re: Django Async DEP

2019-06-01 Thread Andrew Godwin
writing up a funding plan for this, including various options for how we can pay people for their work. Andrew On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 2:55 AM Andrew Godwin wrote: > > > On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 4:31 AM Tobias Kunze wrote: > >> Hi Andrew (and everybody following the dis

Re: Django Async DEP

2019-06-06 Thread Andrew Godwin
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 3:20 PM Pkl wrote: > Hello, > > I'm a little late to the party, thanks for the big overview on this > complex matter. > > There are lots of thinks I still don't understand though, for example > regarding "what it unlocks". What asyncio structures would allow to run > severa

Re: Django Async DEP

2019-06-07 Thread Andrew Godwin
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 9:19 AM John Obelenus wrote: > I wonder about the end-result payoff of this approach. In general, > Django/Python code is not going to be I/O bound, which is where > asynchronous approaches are going to get the bang for your buck. Even when > it comes to DB access—the DB is

Re: Django Async DEP

2019-06-08 Thread Andrew Godwin
On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 3:14 AM Pascal Chambon wrote: > Hello, > > There is something a little scary for me, in changing all the core of > Django to async, when this really helps only, imho, a tiny fraction of > users : websocket/long polling services, and reddit-like sites with > thousands+ hits

Re: A Django Async Roadmap

2019-06-25 Thread Andrew Godwin
s looking like? > > CB > > On Friday, 12 April 2019 07:33:35 UTC+1, Shaggy wrote: >> >> and how it is going ? >> is there some interest from django devs? >> >> On Monday, 4 June 2018 15:18:23 UTC+2, Andrew Godwin wrote: >>> >>> Hello eve

Re: Resource loading (Django without a filesystem)

2019-06-27 Thread Andrew Godwin
My impression reading over the problem a little yesterday was that we could work to provide a common "get me a resource" abstraction in Django that papers over the couple of different ways it has to work, though I haven't looked super far into things that require directory listing (e.g. migrations)

Re: Resource loading (Django without a filesystem)

2019-06-27 Thread Andrew Godwin
ke an easier fix there because the > project controls the "resource" directories and could sprinkle in the > necessary __init__.py files. I filed an issue to start the discussion > there as well, https://bugs.launchpad.net/pytz/+bug/1834363 > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 2:40 PM

Re: Django Async DEP

2019-07-21 Thread Andrew Godwin
on! Andrew On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 9:14 AM Andrew Godwin wrote: > > > On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 3:14 AM Pascal Chambon > wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> There is something a little scary for me, in changing all the core of >> Django to async, when this really helps

Re: Django Async DEP

2019-07-21 Thread Andrew Godwin
e"; I'll bet there's a bunch the broader community could > learn from the specifics. > > Jacob > > On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 3:54 PM Andrew Godwin wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> After a long and involved vote, I can announce that the Technical Board &

Re: Django Async DEP

2019-07-21 Thread Andrew Godwin
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 1:11 PM Ehigie Aito wrote: > Django 3.0? > Django follows time-based releases; what's in Django 3.0 will depend on when we can get it landed. At the moment I am optimistic something will make it in, but I make no promises! Andrew -- You received this message because yo

Re: Django Async DEP

2019-07-21 Thread Andrew Godwin
ou are all more than welcome. Andrew On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 1:02 PM Andrew Godwin wrote: > I'll ask permission and then summarise the points raised back out here! > > Andrew > > On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 1:01 PM Jacob Kaplan-Moss > wrote: > >> Congratulations, and g

Re: Translation templatetag aliases

2019-07-27 Thread Andrew Godwin
I agree too. Let's change it. Andrew On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 4:03 AM Markus Holtermann wrote: > Easy: +1 from me as well for reasons state before. > > /Markus > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2019, at 6:15 PM, Adam Johnson wrote: > > +1 from me too for the reasons that Aymeric states. > > > > Another small

Re: Django Websocket Implementation Request

2019-08-01 Thread Andrew Godwin
Unfortunately, from my perspective, websocket support is tricky enough that it's at least not on the short-term plan to bake into Django; it's used by only a small fraction of our users, and the Channels project is an official Django project, so it's as close as we can get so far. Future Django ver

Re: Make Development More Accessible

2019-08-07 Thread Andrew Godwin
We actually discussed this a little at the PyCon AU sprints and the consensus was that GitHub issues would be great *if only they were a bit more featureful*. The problems I feel are specifically an issue: - Ticket states; this is not easily replicated with labels, while components etc. are mappe

Proposing development discussion forums

2019-08-09 Thread Andrew Godwin
Hi everyone, This might be slightly controversial, but I would like to propose that we have a forum for discussing Django development (and potentially user support), alongside the mailing list and maybe, eventually replacing it. My full reasoning is below, but in short, it would be more accessibl

Re: Proposing development discussion forums

2019-08-09 Thread Andrew Godwin
‪On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 10:16 PM ‫אורי‬‎ wrote:‬ > Every Google Group also has an online forum: > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/django-developers > Indeed, I am aware of this, I usually use it when I link threads on Twitter. However, it is not really a forum in the sense I am describi

Re: Proposing development discussion forums

2019-08-10 Thread Andrew Godwin
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 3:30 AM Carlton Gibson wrote: > What does it need from Ops? (Is there a `docker run-my-service`? Could we > leverage djangoproject.com (and GitHub) logins, or are they always going > to be separate?) > Markus has done more investigation on how to run it, though my impress

Re: Proposing development discussion forums

2019-08-12 Thread Andrew Godwin
I agree James - forums tend to age slightly worse than mailing lists for archival content, but I'm hoping the improved experience in the moment makes up for it. Plus, our current mailing list archive depends on a service from Google, and I trust those less these days (though I hope Google Group

Re: Proposing development discussion forums

2019-08-13 Thread Andrew Godwin
, 2019 at 10:10 PM Andrew Godwin wrote: > I agree James - forums tend to age slightly worse than mailing lists for > archival content, but I'm hoping the improved experience in the moment > makes up for it. > > Plus, our current mailing list archive depends on a service from G

Announcing the Django Forum

2019-09-10 Thread Andrew Godwin
Hi all, If you recall, last month I brought up the idea of a Django Forum ( https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/django-developers/HGAHQqKp7rs) - we're now ready to launch this forum in a test phase! You can find it at https://forum.djangoproject.com Like our Trac, it's tied into GitHub authe

Re: Django 3.0 Release Notes - ASGI

2019-10-14 Thread Andrew Godwin
I agree - we need to communicate that ASGI support does *not *mean you can start writing async def views. I think we should put a big disclaimer to that effect next to it in the release notes and say it should be coming next release. Andrew On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 5:45 PM Josh Smeaton wrote: >

Re: Request for Input: WSGI 2.0

2016-01-04 Thread Andrew Godwin
Hi Cory, I'll reply on the Web-SIG mailing list too, but as I've outlined elsewhere, I don't think ASGI would be a suitable replacement for WSGI in the current form; in particular, I suspect it will have a performance disadvantage, though I've not quantified yet. That said, if Django Channels doe

Re: slow migrations

2016-01-07 Thread Andrew Godwin
Yes, it's basically a fundamental design flaw of having the migrations represented this way - it makes autodetection and code generation very accurate, but at the expense of calculation time. There is some optimisation work that can be done to try and avoid building intermediate states, but it's a

Re: Django Integration

2016-03-05 Thread Andrew Godwin
Hi Chad, The REST framework request feature integration, in particular, has not started yet; Mozilla has been having some issues working out how to pay their various grantees, and from my understanding we still haven't received the grant money yet. Channels is well underway, but that's only becau

Re: Django Integration

2016-03-05 Thread Andrew Godwin
addition and tweaking some imports. Andrew On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Tim Graham wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > What's your thinking about whether or not any of this will make it into > 1.10? The alpha is scheduled for May 16. > > On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 2:40:05 PM UTC-5, An

Re: Feedback on Django Channels

2016-03-18 Thread Andrew Godwin
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Vincent wrote: > Hey Andrew, > > Thanks for looking through all that, and for the reply. > > I like the simplicity of your updated examples. I started to make a > counter-example to suggest that `include` be inside of a `route` ( > https://gist.github.com/orokusak

Re: Feedback on Django Channels

2016-03-19 Thread Andrew Godwin
Hi Vincent, I think you make some good points - in particular, I think includes are probably a necessity, as you say. However, I disagree we should let people have either channel->url or url->channel; I'd like us not to try and give people multiple ways to do things if we can help it, especially i

Re: Feedback on Django Channels

2016-03-19 Thread Andrew Godwin
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > > > 1. Debugging errors: > > I found debugging errors that happen in a consumer to be *really* > difficult -- errors mostly presented as things just silently not working. > It took a ton of messing around with logging setups before I coul

Re: Feedback on Django Channels

2016-03-19 Thread Andrew Godwin
7;), > > # Catches any UK phone number and routes to UkSmsConsumer > route('sms.receive', sender=r'\+44(?P[0-9]+)$', > UkSmsConsumer), > ] > > Is that right? > > On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 5:18:51 PM UTC-4, Andrew Godwin wrote: >> >

Re: Feedback on Django Channels

2016-03-19 Thread Andrew Godwin
st took a short break (too many LOC at work today), and > while I was away I was thinking about all of this. > > Here's what I came up with: > > https://gist.github.com/orokusaki/17b4cf734b4d2f2af117 > > On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 3:57:38 PM UTC-4, Andrew Godwin wrote: &g

Re: Feedback on Django Channels

2016-03-19 Thread Andrew Godwin
You're right. Assume I put the keyword arguments at the end, sorry - the two positional arguments are the channel name and the consumer. On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Ryan Hiebert wrote: > > On Mar 18, 2016, at 9:58 AM, Andrew Godwin wrote: > > routing = [ >

Re: Feedback on Django Channels

2016-03-21 Thread Andrew Godwin
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 9:55 AM, David Evans wrote: > On the static files question, I'm about to release v3 of WhiteNoise ( > http://whitenoise.evans.io/en/latest/changelog.html) which provides the > option to integrate via Django middlware, rather than wsgi middleware. (It > uses the FileRespons

Re: Feedback on Django Channels

2016-03-21 Thread Andrew Godwin
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Sean Brant wrote: > How does the new channels model handle requests with sensitive > information? Say you have a login view and the user is submitting a > username/password. Does the password get serialized into the message queue > as plain text? If so is that a

Re: Feedback on Django Channels

2016-03-21 Thread Andrew Godwin
se the SECRET_KEY to decrypt the > message. It'd be nice if encryption were an option encoded within the > message or route somehow, so it could be optionally turned on for sensitive > data. I'm guessing that there's probably an issue with my assumptions > though. > >

Re: Feedback on Django Channels

2016-03-22 Thread Andrew Godwin
-transit is a > basic requirement of nearly every regulatory regime, and we should do what > we can to help. > > [2] https://cryptography.io/en/latest/fernet/ > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 7:15 PM, Andrew Godwin > wrote: > >> The channel layer could indeed use SE

Re: Feedback on Django Channels

2016-03-22 Thread Andrew Godwin
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Michael Manfre wrote: > > If not provided out of the box, there needs to be a supported way of > wiring in encryption. The security/compliance person at my job stated that > only securing the transport was not good enough for our compliance > requirements when I w

Re: Feedback on Django Channels

2016-04-01 Thread Andrew Godwin
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 11:32 PM, Shai Berger wrote: > Hi, > > Finally found the time to go through this discussion. > > The first note that comes to mind is: > > Although it has already been pointed out more than once that positional > arguments cannot follow keyword arguments, you both (Andrew a

Re: Feedback on Django Channels

2016-04-01 Thread Andrew Godwin
> > > Well, in that case I would consider defining the consumer as a required, > but > keyword (and keyword-only in Python3) argument, specified in the end by > convention. Putting it between the channel and channel parameters is ugly > IMO. > > It would be easy enough to change all the docs and ex

Re: Django Integration

2016-05-03 Thread Andrew Godwin
might have it > ready by next Monday or so, so that I'll have at least a few days to review > it before the alpha scheduled for May 16? > > [0] https://github.com/django/django/pull/6419 > > On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 7:49:41 PM UTC-5, Andrew Godwin wrote: >> >>

Re: Django Integration

2016-05-04 Thread Andrew Godwin
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 6:15 AM, Mark Lavin wrote: > I had assumed this was still a work in progress because there are missing > tests and some documentation. The build is passing but the unittest > coverage for the new modules seems low or at least not up to the standards > I expect for Django co

Re: Django Integration

2016-05-04 Thread Andrew Godwin
ange I'm going to make, Django will depend on these in install_requires but not actually use them until you try and use a channels feature; they're in install_requires out of user convenience (having a traceback the first time you use the new built-in Django feature seems bad). Consideri

Re: Django Integration

2016-05-04 Thread Andrew Godwin
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Markus Holtermann wrote: > What about having asgiref and daphne as optional dependencies instead of > hard once and raising a proper exception "please install ..." when the > import fails? > > ``` > try: >from asgiref import ... > except ImportError: >rais

Re: Django Integration

2016-05-04 Thread Andrew Godwin
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Mark Lavin wrote: > > > Given that there is no guarantee of message delivery, I don't think this > is suitable or recommended for using for background tasks. I don't think > the Django docs should encourage that usage. At least without a strong > warning that this

Re: Django Integration

2016-05-04 Thread Andrew Godwin
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Mark Lavin wrote: > I can (and do) appreciate the effort that's gone into this work while > still feeling as though it isn't ready to be merged with Django. To be > honest given that this PR contains almost no changes to Django itself and > only adds new code, I d

Call for Channels work

2016-05-04 Thread Andrew Godwin
Hi everyone, We finally have everything in place to pay people from the MOSS funds given to us by Mozilla for Channels (and more importantly we now have the money itself), so now I'd like to open the call for help. We have a list of tasks that need doing in Channels, and the money to pay people f

Re: Django Integration

2016-05-04 Thread Andrew Godwin
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Tim Graham wrote: > The future is hard to predict, but I'll add that I'm a tad nervous about > this as well. > > I'm completely inexperienced with channels at this time. Who else has a > good grasp of the code right now and could help fix release blocking bugs > if

Re: Django Integration

2016-05-05 Thread Andrew Godwin
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote: > On Thursday, May 5, 2016, Russell Keith-Magee > wrote: > >> I will admin that I haven’t been paying *close* attention to Andrew’s >> work - I’m aware of the broad strokes, and I’ve skimmed some of the design >> discussions, but I haven’t

Re: My Take on Django Channels

2016-05-05 Thread Andrew Godwin
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Mark Lavin wrote: > After somewhat hijacking another thread > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/django-developers/t_zuh9ucSP4/eJ4TlEDMCAAJ > I thought it was best to start fresh and clearly spell out my feelings > about the Channels proposal. To start, this discussi

Re: My Take on Django Channels

2016-05-05 Thread Andrew Godwin
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Mark Lavin wrote: > Thank you for your comments and I have some brief replies. > > > If I'm understanding it correctly, groups are an emulated broadcast. I'm > saying it would be an advantage for it to use pub/sub but it does not. > You are correct; the reason Red

Re: My Take on Django Channels

2016-05-05 Thread Andrew Godwin
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Carl Meyer wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > On 05/05/2016 02:19 PM, Andrew Godwin wrote: > > I will put my hand up and say that this sidestepped the DEP process, and > > that's entirely my fault. It was not my intention; I've been working

Re: My Take on Django Channels

2016-05-05 Thread Andrew Godwin
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Carl Meyer wrote: > > I've no desire either to aggravate your RSI or kick you in the teeth! I > understand the multiple competing pressures here and won't stand in the > way of a merge into 1.10 sans DEP if that still seems like the best path > forward to you. It's

Re: My Take on Django Channels

2016-05-05 Thread Andrew Godwin
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Mark Lavin wrote: > Yes I agree with the value of a standardized way of communicating between > these processes and I listed that as a highlight of Channels, though it > quickly shifted into criticism. I think that's where we are crossing paths > with relation to K

<    1   2   3   4   5   >