On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <ja...@jacobian.org> wrote: > On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > > My point is that there is nothing about this problem that is unique to User. > Django's own codebase contains another example of exactly the same pattern > -- Comments. > > As the original author and designer of that pattern, I should probably point > out that I now think it's a mistake. Have you actually tried using it? It > doesn't really work very well. Every time I've introduced any sort of > "swappable model" mechanism I've come to regret it.
Totally agree with Jacob here, plus Tai's comment that "There is such a thing as too generic." We've made the mistake of making things too generic in the past, and it's kind of infuriating in retrospect, both philosophically and in terms of code maintenance/understanding. (django/utils/tree.py, anyone??) I think our policy should be: make the simplest thing that can possibly work for a narrowly-tailored use case, then make things more generic *slowly* if there's a demand. No need to be an Architecture Astronaut. Adrian -- 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.
