it was accepted but it added _is_stored to models. This seems a
lot cleaner and is more standard through DB implementations.
On Apr 28, 5:02 am, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 13:49 +0200, David Danier wrote:
> > > For this particular case i
Is it my understanding that aggregate would not return an actual
object (from the original examples above).
Also, in regards to HAVING support. Unless you plan to implement logic
into .filter() which says "oh hey this is from an aggregate, using
having" then this is a MUST. There's no other way y
says "HEY WE JUST CHANGED THE ENTIRE DBAPI ALL YOUR HACKS
WILL BREAK" (I didn't even know QSRF was released until someone
pointed it out to me)
On Apr 29, 10:51 am, "James Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:35 AM, David Cramer <[EMA
Yes im aware of the backwards incompatibility page but that mostly covers the
public api. A lot of time for our uses we have to go beyond just using the
public api. This is another situation where having more releases could help :)
-Original Message-
From: Marty Alchin <[EMAIL PROTECTED
n log.
-Original Message-
From: James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 1:46 PM
To: django-developers@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: QSRF Related
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 3:38 PM, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes im aware of the backwards
y noy
-Original Message-
From: James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 1:57 PM
To: django-developers@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: QSRF Related
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 3:54 PM, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I update from python 2.4 to 2.5 I can
Le 29 avr. 08 à 22:38, David Cramer a écrit :
>
> Yes im aware of the backwards incompatibility page but that mostly
> covers the public api. A lot of time for our uses we have to go
> beyond just using the public api. This is another situation where
> having more rele
lopers@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: QSRF Related
David Cramer wrote:
> When an api is limited how would you propose to extend it? You do it the way
> OO is built.
> When releases happen you can expect things to break. When they don't how do
> you expect to
> know when you are s
+1 on pk index fix
as for auth_user, username being indexed would be good, but I believe
the hash is calculated completely outside of SQL, so there's no need
to index password.
On Apr 29, 12:15 pm, Ed Menendez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When creating a one to one table or a table with a compou
Gonsalves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 29-Apr-08, at 11:25 PM, David Cramer wrote:
>
> > WILL BREAK" (I didn't even know QSRF was released until someone
> > pointed it out to me)
>
> must have been about a million messages congratulating malcolm on
When did I blame anyone? I didn't even update to QS-RF yet. I just thought
it would be useful to put a big fat label on the website saying "hey trunk
just got a massive face lift".
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Mike Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David,
> The
> that isn't quite readable without double checking the documentation. I
> don't think you could find any argument name that would make that
> functionality clear with a single argument.
>
>
> >
>
--
David Cramer
Director of Technology
iBegin
http://www.ibegin
rote:
> > On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 10:31 AM, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm still not quite sure why we need any additional methods, or flags,
> or
> > anything. Can someone explain to me where the underlying API is having
> > is
If annotate is equivilent to group by thenn ordering or seperation shouldn't
matter. In my opinion it should function just like any other filtering and just
merge together. Keep in mind I haven't read about the change to filter with
qs-rf yet.
-Original Message-
From: Nicolas Lara <[EM
Also I believe group by shouldn't happen on every column unless explicit. By
default it should group on primary key.
-Original Message-
From: Yuri Baburov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 1:53 PM
To: django-developers@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Aggregate Support to the
gt; I like the line of thought that lead to this, but find myself in the
> insert/create and update camp. Internally, we've been using some
> monkeypatching to add .insert and .update methods to all models (we
> needed this functionality on models that were in contrib).
>
>
&
Let me also bring up once again, that this is what all the other major DB
layers that I've looked at do. So it doesn't seem like it's a bad solution
at all.
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 11:11 PM, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 1:
Sphinx has very good documentation, and a full implementation in
Django is available: http://code.google.com/p/django-sphinx/
On May 5, 7:05 am, mrts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Excellent. Looking forward for the finished project!
>
> On May 5, 4:50 pm, Ben Firshman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Can someone add it to the BackwardsIncompatibeChanges page?
I saw the warning, and briefly skimmed over the page and switched to
Paginator. To my suprise, there was a little clause at the bottom
saying "USE QUERYSETPAGINATOR" which I didn't notice. You can guess
what I was thinking when I saw it
x27;t use it without
subclassing.
If it's not an iterable though, probably should be :)
On May 5, 6:59 pm, SmileyChris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You were using a new feature (albeit the wrong one) so that's not
> really a backwards incompatible issue, is it?
>
> On May 6,
Here is the patch i was talking about:
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/5309
On Apr 28, 5:02 am, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 13:49 +0200, David Danier wrote:
> > > For this particular case it saves a whole line. One concern I hav
I'd like to present my concept for partial models, which would be an
attempt to replace the use of .values() returning a dictionary
(although .values() still has uses if you dont actually want an
instance). Keep in mind, the way I'm presenting this would keep #17
working :)
values, values_tuple,
Sort of, although I'm going to go against Adrian on the hide() method (I'd
rather be explicit than implicit).
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Russell Keith-Magee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:35 AM, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I swear I saw something about work being done on this. Has anyone
begun? If not I'll gladly throw up a patch to get it into trunk.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to
I can help, I'd just subscribed to the google
group.
Cheers,
David
Le 10 mai 08 à 13:19, stefan a écrit :
>
> Hi there fellow Django enthusiasts,
>
> My name is Stefan, I'm a tech type like probably all of you, and I'm
> based in Iceland for the time being. This
What is the difference between annotate and aggregate? They seem like
they'd do the same thing, except annotate sounds like it should be
doing GROUP BY, which, if that's the case, then this goes against the
very reasoning which a group_by or something similar should not be
used. The logic in the i
gregate on a foreign table).
>
> On 12 mei, 16:50, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What is the difference between annotate and aggregate? They seem like
> > they'd do the same thing, except annotate sounds like it should be
> > doing GROUP BY
I realize how the aggregates work, but if annotate is just for
aggregates, then remove it as a standalone method. If it's not, then
it should solve all the problems with one blow.
On May 12, 4:37 pm, "Russell Keith-Magee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Mon, May 12,
That's much more clear than what I had been reading.
If that is the case, then annotate would replace GROUP BY, and should
also be able to replace distinct().
On May 12, 9:27 pm, "Russell Keith-Magee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 12:01 PM, David
The database engine usually can't fill that in anyways, you should
probably quote it yourself (correct me if I'm wrong).
On May 13, 9:15 am, Dave Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ever since the querset-refactor merge, params in the 'tables' argument
> don't seem to be filled. The documentation d
DISTINCT and GROUP BY are both annotating the results. Taking many rows, and
turning them into a single row based on a key. DISTINCT would be the same as
GROUP BY every, field, in, the, select.
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Collin Grady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> David Cra
Im not suggestung to replace the sql use just that they are identical in
abstraction, and if the api truly doesn't want an sql feel, then it shouldn't
have one
-Original Message-
From: Sander Steffann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 1:03 PM
To: django-developers@googlegr
I like the filter idea -- maybe something like 'required' It could be
similar to marking things as safe for the autoescaping.
Default behavior should be silent failures, and authors can explicitly
set variable calls to fail visibly.
So with Simon's original example, the template author woul
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Gary Wilson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> David Cramer wrote:
> > I'd like to present my concept for partial models, which would be an
> > attempt to replace the use of .values() returning a dictionary
> > (although .va
08 at 3:18 PM, Gary Wilson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> David Cramer wrote:
> > IMO show() and hide() are extremely ugly. And I think .values() is
> becoming
> > ugly with the addition of values_tuple or whatever it's called. I don't
> see
> > a
gt; attributes from related objects is going to be more painful, though...
> dict easily wins there.
>
> But when I tried using the model __new__ and then setting attributes,
> it took 2.04 us; I can't figure out why it's that much slower.
>
> As for signals, maybe we d
p are
misleading because 1) they sound necessary, but they're not; 2) they
don't really do much for you; and 3) folks are led to use manage.py
instead of django-admin, which causes confusion down the road. I'm
not an expert in pedagogy, but it seems preferable to me t
ute. The ValuesQuerySet superclass of ValuesListQuerySet by
default sets its field names with:
[f.attname for f in self.model._meta.fields]
So, my question is: Do folks think that it would be good to have a
public method for getting the field names in
Hi,
This is the mailing list for discussion around developing the actual django
framework, not the use of the framework.
Your request would be better discussed over at django-users
http://groups.google.com/group/django-users .
Cheers,
D
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Pradnya wrote:
> Hello
David,
This mailing list is for the development of the django library itself, not
development WITH the library.
Please direct your question to django-users.
David
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:51 AM, shi shaozhong wrote:
> Is there an equivalent mailling list for WAP?
> I am in need of
Hey, in the interest of easing myself into helping out I've picked an easy
ticket to get done.
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/12074
I've fixed the patch and added tests.
Let me know if I've missed something, or done something wrong :)
Cheers,
David
--
You received this
tests.py
D
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 6:52 PM, David P. Novakovic
> wrote:
> > Hey, in the interest of easing myself into helping out I've picked an
> easy
> > ticket to get done.
> > http://code.djangoproject.com/
rs
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:17 AM, David P. Novakovic wrote:
> Hey Alex,
>
> Thanks for the feedback. I actually had checked this with Russ earlier, but
> didn't have a response yet. I prefer TestCases and would be happy to oblige.
>
> I'll move the cases I'm testing
Mornin'
I've attached a patch with unit tests and updated the existing patch.
Let me know if there is anything else I can do on this one.
David
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group,
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/13182
Let me know if there is anything else I can do on this ticket, it is fairly
simple anyway.
David
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email
at first glance it does not appear that django users can
contribute to the documentation at:
http://www.djangoproject.com/documentation/
is this the case?
if it is, i'd like to suggest opening up the editing of the
django documentation to the django community.
peace,
Django needs an equivalent to Mongrel
http://jyte.com/cl/django-needs-an-equivalent-to-mongrel
are there any other possibilities on the horizon besides Aspen?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Djan
On Sun, April 1, 2007 3:24 pm, James Bennett wrote:
>
> discussion of developing a new "standard" Python
> web development stack goes on over at the Python
> web-sig list.
thanks for the pointer James.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you a
You can basically do this with the "with" statement:
http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/templates/builtins/?from=olddocs#with
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Yo-Yo Ma wrote:
> I'm sure this will be met with criticism, but there is a reason why
> just about all template languages allow the
e up to correct me here :)
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Yo-Yo Ma wrote:
> You absolutely cannot. The "with" statement puts the variable in the
> scope of the "with" statement only, not to mention that would not be
> very explicit at all.
>
> On Aug 26,
Hey dude,
What about something like sentry or lumberjack?
I haven't looked at them too seriously, but I'd imagine there'd be a
way to do smarter summarizing of emails etc..?
D
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Simon Litchfield wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Default behaviour of sending an email on 500 erro
I don't want to sound negative, but answering your own question before
anyone else can doesn't change the answer ;)
D
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Yo-Yo Ma wrote:
> Is there any plans to incorporate
> http://github.com/SmileyChris/easy-thumbnails/
> into django.contrib? I have seen so many
core.
The real question is not "can it be included?" but why is it a problem
that this is a third party lib at the moment? Is there a strong case
that it be better if it was part of django core or does it do its job
just fine the way it is now?
David
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 3:09 PM, David
o.
>>>> > I don't think it belongs in the core, but contrib seems like an
>>>> > excellent place for it to go along with the other batteries in the pack.
>>>>
>>>> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Yo-Yo Ma
>>>> > wrote:
As for running different configs:
manage.py runserver --settings=settings_test
etc..
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 7:25 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Yo-Yo Ma wrote:
>> I'm simply proposing the idea of having the development server
>> explicitly set something to ind
, it'd be better addressed on django-users
first.
David
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 5:41 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Yo-Yo Ma wrote:
>> Hey Jacob, understood. Here's some more details that might help:
> [snip]
>> if user.che
ply implementing a backend and
adding it to the list of auth backends and letting authenticate()
provide the actual authentication.
So yep, unfortunately this is an issue for django-users.
David
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Yo-Yo Ma wrote:
> It is a problem with Django. I thought it
ntion
previously.
Thoughts anyone?
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 9:32 AM, David P. Novakovic
wrote:
> Apart from being slightly offended at you posting a Joel Spolski link
> to make a point, I'll address the actual issue at hand :P
>
> These docs pretty clearly show authenticate happening b
happy with and it
doesn't get in the way of deployment/development. Thus this fails to
meet one of the critical requirements for consideration for inclusion
into core.
D
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Yo-Yo Ma wrote:
> Thanks David, but I'm talking about having something built
This link and the comments suggest some good stuff... particularly the
comment from Malcolm and the original post.
http://www.protocolostomy.com/2009/08/17/django-settings-in-dev-and-production-why-the-hoops/
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 10:01 AM, David P. Novakovic
wrote:
> The thing is,
Hey mate,
Great stuff! A cursory glance shows there isn't anything to log debug
output from url resolution.. something I think I need to add.. I'll
busy a ticket for it :)
D
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've just uploaded a first draft at a patch int
apsulate in a simple Meta style option?
David
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Florian Apolloner
wrote:
> Please post usage questions to the users list. This is already doable
> with model validation.
>
> Florian
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed t
This has probably been discussed at great length previously... but my
2c follows:
If you are using a column/doc store you are trying to solve a
different problem than if you are using an SQL db.
How important is 100% interop? Surely it's about documenting the
differences between them and providin
My problem with all of this is that it feels like a hell of a lot of
hoopjumping to deal with something that could be solved in the
Resolver.
I may be missing something obvious here, so please tell me if I am..
but couldn't the resolver just check that quacks like something
OOViewish has been pass
Sorry in my previous email you could simply pass the uninstantiated
class in the url pattern.
url(r'...',MyOOView,...)
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 8:57 AM, David P. Novakovic
wrote:
> My problem with all of this is that it feels like a hell of a lot of
> hoopjumping to deal with some
the thread get back on topic :)
I was just considering the possibility of actually providing another
option which is a bit more of a radical change, but also doesn't
involve some quicky ... tweaks..
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> On Saturday, October 2, 2010,
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Ian Lewis wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 12:20 AM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
>> Not really. The big win from a class-based view is not being able to
>> store state, you can do that with local variables, it's being able to
>> override parts of the behavior without needi
Sorry, I keep top replying in my emails. It's because I'm mostly
taking everything in and not really replying to anyone specifically.
I _really_ like the idea of View being synonymous with a ResponseFactory.
Using __call__:
The view base class can take *args and **kwargs and apply them lazily
wh
Hey,
I've been working on tickets that don't have tests or patches or both,
to help move them along :)
I've found it a good way to get involved with things that aren't too
contentious.
There are a few documentation bugs as well.
Others will certainly have their own take on
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 5:21 AM, George Sakkis wrote:
>
> Since dispatch is going to be defined on the base View class, can't we
> omit it from the urlconf and have the URLresolver do:
>
> if isinstance(view, type) and issubclass(view, View):
> view = view.dispatch
Russ mentioned this one ca
Hello, this mailing list is to discuss the development of django itself.
Please use django-users for questions like yours :)
David
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 4:03 PM, aravind wrote:
> I installed python2.5 and django official
>
> version and also copied admin.py in
>
> scripts
This is certainly an artifact of the fact that messages recent started
supporting anonymous messages. Previously it depended on auth.
I suspect you just need to open a ticket for this.
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 4:43 AM, Yo-Yo Ma wrote:
> I have a large application that doesn't user contrib.auth, an
Hello,
This is a mailing list to discuss the development of the django
framework itself.
Please post your question to django-users :)
If you find there is an actual bug at play, you may be redirected here..
Cheers,
David
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 3:54 AM, guilhelm wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
Hey, this post is definitely for the django-users mailing list. This mailing
list is solely for the discussion of django development itself. That is,
discussion about development of the core libraries.
Cheers,
David
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Maxim Mai wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Jeremy Dunck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I was thinking the FormWizard should allow GET to be used on all but
> the last step, or should allow configuration of what to method to use.
>
> Forms aren't just for posting.
>
> Any interest in this?
Nice thing about
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 4:59 PM, David Durham, Jr.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> form, and are redirected to a GET for the next step. In this case,
> the POST disappears from the user's history (refresh and reload work
> as expected).
Sorry, reload and back work as
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Waylan Limberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Um, this is intentional and a good thing. If you read the spec, not
> only is the difference between GET and POST defined, but the way user
> agents (browsers) should treat them is defined as well. Breaking the
> back & re
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This appears to be a proposal to re-implement triggers inside Django.
>
> I can see there are benefits if the underlying DB platform won't support
> triggers, but wouldn't triggers be the preferred solution when they're
>
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 9:00 AM, Simon Willison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sep 24, 2:18 pm, zellyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Would it make sense to have the middleware/view decorator set a
>> property on the request, and pass the request to all forms, and have
>> *all* forms CSRF-protec
Hi all,
I posted a patch for django.contrib.formtools.wizard that adds a
SessionWizard class. I'd like to know if there's any interest in
apply this or a similar patch, and if so I'll work on tests and
documentation.
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/9200
Thanks,
Dave
--~--~-~--~--
>> http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/9200
>
> I see this pattern a lot, and I guess it will be quite useful - I was
> just thinking about writing someting like this class myself.
> I have marked the ticked as "Need Docs" and "Need tests", and the status as
> DDN.
So I'm working on tests for t
> So I'm working on tests for this, and I can see the pattern for
> writing tests by looking at django.contrib.formtools.tests.py, but I
> don't see what the infrastructure is, if any, for running these tests.
> The documentation here doesn't seem to have the info I need
>
> http://docs.djangop
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 9:29 PM, David Durham, Jr.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I did find more information here:
>
> http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/internals/contributing/
>
> But this method appears to only run the tests in tests, not the tests
> in django/contr
>> > Maybe this tip could be added in the doc; for others sgbd, there must
>> > be something similar.
>> > And why not put this in the inspectdb command ...
>>
>> Because it's a dirty, dirty hack.
> It is your opinion; what is your solution ? it should interest me,
> because this "dirty hack" can
I think I'm pretty much done with what I plan to do with this ticket:
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/9200
Unless anyone else has comments or suggestions that could improve its
chances of actually making it into contrib.
Thanks,
Dave
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~---
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, I added my votes here:
> https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pIaJn09D1vqW1yJjl3wGUeg
> (not sure if you're counting non-committer votes or not)
You're -1 on SessionWizard is partially invalid. I tried to
anticipate the n
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 7:50 PM, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So I needed the ability to specify initial data for a wizard, and I
> also liked the idea of storing it in the session (vs the POST). I was
> pointed to the SessionWizard patch, and I believe this was a
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:34 PM, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So far I've refactored a bunch of the methods to store less in the
> session, and generate more on demand (otherwise you could change the
> method and then session data represents inaccu
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 3:15 PM, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Would have to look at how FormPreview's work, but I agree.
>
> So far what I've done with the wizard is remove all of the data from
> the session as much as possible. It calculates cleaned_
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 2:41 PM, alex.gay...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> For any sprint occurring before the 11th I could help arrange
> something in Chicago
Count me in. But all I'll do is try to harass the local python gurus
in to fixing my session-wizard-thing.
-Dave
--~--~-~--~~-
FWIW, here's what I'm doing:
http://fragmentsofcode.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/django-fully-qualified-url/
--David
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
T
le patch took 8 months for someone to
implement and commit to trunk.
My recommendation is to incorporate code in the default session module
which is included in Django.
http://code.google.com/p/django-signedcookies/
David Ross
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this mess
chanisms as
well. Of course, login mechanisms are a bit easier to secure, after
the 5th try, banned. ;)
What would be interesting is to modify the session framework to "ban"
an ip once it has made several Suspicious attempts. What is the point
of raising a Suspicious exception if it does noth
What is the license for the signed cookie code?
On Nov 26, 4:48 am, "Marty Alchin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 2007 8:30 AM, Patryk Zawadzki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure what makes you believe that two cookies are more secure
> > than one. Two n-bit strings are just a
rhaps using SecurID would be
the better solution in such situations. Some think I'm a bit zealous
with security, and I've the reason to be. ;) I don't ever want to be
the person which everyone says, "look at that guy, he was the one at
fault for the break-in at "
David Ross
--
eap. Was even better when the cheap
Iomega NAS went down, and the Solutions CD was nowhere to be found.
Hooray for another cheap product which only has software raid. *sigh*
The Scarred System Administrator,
David Ross
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this mes
AME`: even more clear, `helo_name` is used in the
postfix configuration.
A workaround for this is to setup a SMTP server locally, such as Exim
or Postfix, that simply forwards the emails from Django.
Best wishes
David
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
People doing ajax have probably hit the "XMLHttpRequest doesn't do file
uploads (at least not non-browser-specifically), use a hidden iframe
kludge or flash" issue. Anyway, maybe that will change one day, but
right now:
Things that try to handle file uploads via hidden iframes, like the
jquery-for
On 18/07/10 10:03, Florian Apolloner wrote:
> On Jul 17, 11:29 am, Gregor Müllegger wrote:
>> I think Florian meant that its not possible to change HTTP headers by
>> Javascript XSS attacks (or am I wrong here as well?).
> Exactly.
I think you're thinking of CSRF, javascripted client-side parts o
On 17/08/10 04:24, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> Adding timezone sensitivity to Django's time/datetime fields is
> something that has been on the project to-do list for almost as long
> as I've been associated with the project (coming up on 5 years).
Just noting existence of Brian Rosner's django
701 - 800 of 807 matches
Mail list logo
