On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Andy McCurdy <sed...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 14, 2012, at 6:37 PM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > >> >> My only concern is: >> >>> We could store which fields have these hooks upon ModelBase.__new__ >>> construction and so skip most fields and overhead in __init__. >> >> I'm not sure if I'm misreading your intentions here, but just to be >> sure -- I'd like to avoid explicitly naming certain field types as >> "special" in ModelBase if at all possible. If we explicitly name >> certain fields in ModelBase, then it means that third-parties with the >> same requirement won't be able to exploit the same API entry point. In >> the case of GenericForeignKey specifically, it also means that we >> would be introducing a dependency (even if it was name-only) on >> contrib into core -- which is something we've been trying to move away >> from. > > > > I think Jeremy means doing something like this in ModelBase.__new__: > > > meta.fields_needing_init = [field for field in fields if hasattr(field, > 'model_pre_init')] > > > And in ModelBase.__init__: > > > for field in self._meta.fields_needing_init: > field.model_pre_init(*args, **kwargs) > > > This way, in ModelBase.__init__, only the fields that actually need to be > initialized have this method called. >
That is indeed what I meant, but I think Anssi's probably right that this belongs in contribute_to_class instead of a new adhoc thing in ModelBase.__new__. I'll take a swing at making this change. Opened related ticket: https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/18627 -- 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.
