I created a generic `accounts` app which has (among other things) it's own `Profile` model with a username field and a OneToOneField pointing at `User`. I added an authentication backend to my settings that checks usernames from my model. Of course there are other supporting components, forms, signals, etc., but this has removed any Django username limitations for me pretty easily.
This might be a little inconvenient, but it works well here and I still have a `User` for every `Profile` so I can hook into Django sessions and groups. If you are having trouble with `User.username` right now or anticipate issues in the near future, I suggest you implement something similar yourself, or find an open source generic app that does it for you, as I think it will likely be a very long time until this is resolved in Django. Cheers. Tai. On Feb 16, 9:57 am, Donald Stufft <donald.stu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 5:49 PM, James Bennett wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Donald Stufft <donald.stu...@gmail.com > > (mailto:donald.stu...@gmail.com)> wrote: > > > I know this has been discussed before, but I wanted to bring it up again > > > in > > > light of the oncoming Djnago 1.4 beta. > > > So, here's the thing: you're asking for a fairly significant, > > massively backwards-incompatible change which requires every Django > > install on the planet to do a schema migration... about four hours > > before we feature-freeze 1.4. There is simply no way this is going to > > get in on that time scale; 1.5, maybe, if the inherent problems can > > get ironed out, and if you're strongly interested in making this > > happen I'd invite you to help out with that. > > > But 1.4 beta -- and thus feature freeze -- happens tonight, and it's > > flat impossible to land something of this magnitude before that > > happens. > > 1.5 would work as well ;) Sorry I sometimes speak before I think things > through, > thoroughly. django.auth in general is something that i'm interested in and I > want > to try and improve to be more flexible, I just hadn't though of a general > solution yet > and a "easy" (code wise) fix appealed in a shorter term "provide some > improvement" > sort of way. > > > > > > > > > -- > > "Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct -- the best kind of > > correct." > > > -- > > 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 > > (mailto:django-developers@googlegroups.com). > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > > (mailto:django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com). > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en. -- 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 django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
