Hi Russ, As Jeff has already said, this decision is understandable. I had found myself up against a wall when I created the solution... I figured it might be useful for other developers, but won't push for its inclusion in the base distribution.
Further comments are below. On Mar 11, 6:20 pm, "Russell Keith-Magee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > By disallowing the form of syntax you propose, we are attempting to > enforce good design at the applicaiton level. I think that the problem that Jeff and I are trying to emphasize is that this restriction is forcing us to use sub-optimal application design methods, not good ones. On 3/12/07, Rubic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You can argue that anyone who understands > the issue well enough is probably capable of > working around it, as Ben and I have. That's > good enough for me. I think that the current approach fosters good design for smaller applications, but it poses problems for larger projects. Maybe this is a good thing, though, as it forces developers to rethink their approach to application design in the 95+% of cases where there is a viable work-around using conventional methods. > Maybe Ben can refactor > his ticket as code to post on djangosnippet.org. Submitting the patch was easy, as we were already using it internally. I'll certainly look into the possibility of pulling it out of the Django internals and creating a snippet, but it will likely require considerably more effort, and won't happen immediately. Anyway, Russ and Jeff, thanks for your feedback. - Ben --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
