On Monday, August 5, 2013 8:02:52 AM UTC+3, Jani Tiainen wrote: > > Hi, > > You seem to found kind of an issue which happens with GeoDjango part as > well. Most of the geodjango operations require quite heavy to/from data > mangling while reading and/or writing data. > > Currently there isn't clean solution to tell (per field) how data should > be treated per backend. Django ORM works pretty well for a primitives like > numbers, strings and such but when it goes to complex datatypes (like your > encrypted field). > > It would be really useful to have something to allow data mangling on a > when reading/writing data from/to database per backend basis. Unfortunately > such a feature isn't easy to implement due the current way how ORM works. > > If you require such a functionality now, you should take a look how > different GeoDjango backends deal with the similiar problem. >
I agree that there is room for improvement in how data conversions in the ORM work. If I recall correctly different backends work slightly differently, and when to_python() is called isn't consistent. Improvements in this area are welcome. For the original use case I think it would be better to do the encryption already in the original SELECT. I am not sure if there is any easy way to do that currently... - Anssi -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
