On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 12:00 AM, James Bennett <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, first of all user profiles aren't a "narrowly useful special > case" -- they're an extremely common feature needed on lots of > real-world sites. So having some sort of standard API for that is a > good thing.
Obviously, I didn't say user profiles were narrow; I said the benefit of having this special case is limited. > Second, I'm not sure why you're devoting so much energy to what's I'm not. I keep saying it's not a big deal, doesn't really need to be changed, and that I just wanted to know how it got that way; you keep writing essays in response. I'm going to elide the rest so I don't get another essay dropped on my head. > Personally I'm still a bit wary of OneToOneField. Not for any reason > related to the code or technical issues, but simply because of what it > implies -- OneToOneField is most useful for handling the link between > two classes in a multi-table inheritance situation (which is how > Django makes use of it internally), and any time I see a OneToOneField > my instinctive reaction is "oh, this is meant to behave like a > subclass of that other model". I find the "zero or one to one" case much more commonly useful, and OneToOneField is much more natural for that (because ForeignKey's reverse gives a set); but that's the subject of another thread (and, of course, that topic is what led me to wonder about this one). -- Glenn Maynard --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
