On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Javier Guerra Giraldez <jav...@guerrag.com>wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:18 PM, <chris.fores...@vokalinteractive.com> > wrote: > > > > Wouldn't an easy (i.e. straightforward) solution be to add an Django > "ODM" > > that mirrors the ORM wherever it makes sense? This sounds pretty close > to > > your second solution, except choosing SQL vs NoSQL means users make a > more > > explicit choice whether to use the ODM API vs the ORM API. > > I think it would be very straightforward to do that at the public API > level, but the ModelForm and the admin use lots of undocumented _meta > fields which would have to be mimicked too. > > Still, i'm convinced that this would be the best answer, and a formal > definition of _meta is a big plus, maybe even proportional to the > effort needed. > Agreed. Independent of whether NoSQL gets added to core, _meta would definitely benefit from an implementation cleanup and formalisation as a backwards-compatible API. (Actually… this might make a good GSoC project…) Yours, Russ Magee %-) -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAJxq84-%2BWSpoWT9-ogn_WxCnZdhafKKsirKaoNqu64A60dpxTw%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
