Having worked through the code of several Django nosql/alternative database
backend libraries, forks, etc...
I've noticed that that one of the biggest challenges they run into, is
'conforming' to many of the things Django expects these lowest layers to do.
I opened this ticket https://code.dja
mailing list if you wanna have a chat with us.
>
> Here are also some implementation details
> <http://blog.kazade.co.uk/2015/06/how-djangaes-app-engine-datastore.html>.
>
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Anssi Kääriäinen > wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, December 1
e it does here
https://github.com/django/django/blob/stable/1.9.x/django/db/models/manager.py#L238
the potential impact of such changes is definitely something I'm unfamiliar
with, so I would greatly appreciate any feedback on how appropriate this
approach would be.
- Sam
On Wednes
I'm uncertain how popular the suggestion will be but ... are "channels" the
right solution to our async/concurrency problems? ( I'm all for
django-channels the project and the work to solve these issues)
All the talk of channels, workers, queues and back ends in the explanations
I'm reading as I
You've raise a very good point, one that has been on my mind the entire
time I've been exploring this.
Much of Django has been designed 'on the back of' the ORM, reliant on its
limitations and without need to go beyond the scope of what it can provide,
its very probable that over time this has
gt; query and compiler, because fields are most definitely public/pseudo-public.
>
> But going back to my original point, we'd welcome lots of smaller
> incremental improvements to the abstraction layers. Fields are going to be
> hard to improve though. They offer so many differe
do and communicating it is important to me; I want to make sure
> everyone knows so we can get good feedback on this stuff. For what it's
> worth, I did consider the actor model along with several other kinds of
> concurrency approaches (I've been prototyping bits of this
ies, etc, "Django", regardless of how much we
might change between now and far future versions like 4.0 or 9.0.
Regards
Sam
On Monday, 21 December 2015 19:31:54 UTC+8, Andrew Godwin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 6:05 AM, Samuel Bishop > wrote:
>
>> Hi A
So I read the entire thread so far, and I saw some miscommunication induced
hostility. I wasn't sure what was miscommunicated, just progressively more
sure with each post that `something` had been miscommunicated.
So I read the ticket... and I can see why it was rejected.
Without at least some g
Broadly speaking, I think the 'optimal' goal is not going to be one that
changes our existing documentation structure in any disruptive way.
I think the general concept would be covered by either creating a "fourth
division". So we would go from "topics", "reference", and "how-to", to
"topics"
10 matches
Mail list logo
