On Dec 5, 2007 12:55 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/3591 has been following this
> problem (and the other, related ones). The patches there look
> relatively good and the tests appear to pass, but I'm concerned about
> the level of boat-rocking this patch introduces (it basically redoes
> the entire app/model loading mechanism in the process).
>
> I know that at least a couple other committers -- Malcolm, Joseph --
> have looked at this in the past, as have a number of developer
> community members.
>
> So what I'm looking for here is some insight from folks that have
> already looked at this ticket. What are the with the current patch?
> Are there simpler ways? What types of breakage should I be looking
> for? Is there anything out on one of the branches that I'm going to
> fubar if I start working on this?
I was just thinking about this ticket a few minutes ago, actually,
while revisiting the though of dynamic models. I had looked at it some
time ago, for a vaguely related issue (#4144), but I didn't really
need the whole thing, so I didn't do much digging.
Without looking too much at the patch so far, I'd say to consider
whether or not backwards-compatibility is an essential goal. An
INSTALLED_APPS upgrade is on Adrian's 1.0 hitlist, which means (to me)
that some amount of backwards-incompatibility is allowed, as long as
it's done soon. Of course, the backwards-compatibility portion of the
patch looks to be minimal, so it might be just as easy to leave it in.
Also, speaking of Adrian, the way he worded it ("Make INSTALLED_APPS
an instance, and each app an instance") sounds slightly different than
how I understand the patch thus far. I don't think there's anything
making INSTALLED_APPS an instance of anything, it's still a list as
far as I know. So Adrian might have some of his own ideas about how it
should work that would be worth investigating.
That wording also tends to support the idea that you're allowed to
break backwards-compatibility for people tracking trunk. They're
supposed to be paying attention to all this and/or the Wiki anyway, so
this would be just another one-off post-0.96 code change to comply
with a recent checkout. And since it's only a small section of one
file, I think it's even more reasonable than more far-reaching changes
like unicode or auto-escaping.
Anyway, I'll need to look into this patch for my own sanity anyway, so
if I come up with any other thoughts on it, I'll definitely voice
them. For the most part though, let's hope Vinay Sajip is paying
attention, as his thoughts would be of great use, I'm sure.
-Gul
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
