I could also see a use for this. Also, it would be nice to specify
that at least one instance of the inline object be required. With the
above example, when adding a Kingdom, at least one (or however many
specified) Phylums would be required. A common use for this would be
a person model, with an inline address model, but you want every
person to have at least one address.
On Feb 2, 3:23 pm, "Rob Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I agree this approach is a huge improvement over the current syntax,
> > but I wonder whether it can be expanded even more. Instead of
> > dictionaries, let's use objects:
>
> Woah... inline that is specified by objects that can be subclasses?
> I'll have to wrap my head around that one.
>
> Would it be possible to nest inlines? This is one limitation we
> sometimes bump up against since our data model spans more than a few
> relationships sometimes, and it would be nice to have greater inline
> depth.
>
> For example, if you have:
>
> class Kingdom(models.Model):
> #
> class Admin:
> inlines = (
> StackedInline('Phylum')
> )
>
> class Phylum(models.Model):
> kingdom = models.ForeignKey(Kingdom)
> class Admin:
> inlines = (
> StackedInline('Class')
> )
>
> class Class(models.Model): # ignore the reserved word :)
> phylum = models.ForeignKey(Phylum)
> class Admin:
> inlines = (
> StackedInline('Order')
> )
> etc...
>
> Could that work and span all those relationships, following the
> relationships as it goes.
>
> -Rob
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
