Hi Daniel, First and foremost, thanks for all the good work, and for the clear and precise updates and explanations on django-developers!
I think renaming related to reverse is a good idea, because it is much clearer to me. Could reverse_rel become reverse_related in order not to use abbreviations? For me, data is a better term than concrete, because it deals with fields which store data and not concrete. Good luck! Wim On Sunday, 27 July 2014 10:42:40 UTC+2, Daniel Pyrathon wrote: > > Hi All, > > I am currently working on the new Options API ( > https://github.com/django/django/pull/2894). > > The Options API is at the core of Django, it enables introspection of > Django Models with the rest of the system. This enables lookups, queries, > forms, admin to understand the capabilities of every model. The Options API > is hidden under the _meta attribute of each model class. Options has always > been a private API, but Django developers have always been using it in > their own projects, in a non-official way. As part of my SoC project, I am > exposing the new API for public use. As we are also formalizing a new API > that has always existed, It is important to revisit the terminology and > document it. > > The current terminology is described here > https://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/new_meta_api in the section concepts. > I would encourage all contributors to read the document and express their > opinion, if they think something should be changed. > > A few interesting comments up till now: > > Loic on the PR: > > - I prefer "concrete" to "data" as it makes the parallel with > "virtual" more obvious. > - "related_objects" > "reverse_rel" > - "related_m2m" > "reverse_m2m" > - What about reverse o2o, do they currently fall under > "related_objects"? > - The main issue I have with "related" is that it doesn't provide a > sense of direction, after all both sides of a FK have related objects > waiting on the other end. I also like the symmetry between "m2m" and > "reverse_m2m". > - Django isn't always consistent (and sometime actually wrong) in > naming relations, especially indjango/db/models/fields/related.py. Now > that we start documenting all those things, I see value in getting it > right. > > > Thanks, > Daniel > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. 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/5a39fe21-8c90-4bb2-a55c-c8b72bebc6ae%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
