#811: IPv6 address field support
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: | Owner: erikr
mattimustang@… | Status: assigned
Type: New | Component: Core (Other)
feature | Severity: Normal
Milestone: | Keywords: ipv6 IPAddressField
Version: SVN | dceu2011
Resolution: | Has patch: 1
Triage Stage: Accepted | Needs tests: 0
Needs documentation: 0 | Easy pickings: 0
Patch needs improvement: 0 |
UI/UX: 0 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by erikr):
* keywords: ipv6 IPAddressField => ipv6 IPAddressField dceu2011
* needs_better_patch: 1 => 0
* ui_ux: => 0
* status: new => assigned
* needs_docs: 1 => 0
Comment:
I have attached a new patch for this. I believe this addresses all issues.
Unlike some of the previous patches, this adds one new field, the
IPv46AddressField, that supports both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. For me, it
is very unpleasant to have to use two fields, one for IPv4 and one for
IPv6, every time I need to store an IP address. The form field has
optional parameters to limit it to only IPv4 or only IPv6. So it is still
trivial to create a field for IPv6 addresses only, if you want that. With
it's IPv4-only mode, this can therefore replace IPAddressField
For naming, I settled on IPv46Address for the reasons:
* The field will support both IPv4 and IPv6
* Any kind of generic naming may be unclear
* Generic naming may land us in the same issue as with IPAddressField: due
to some new invention, the field is incomplete, but we can't change it
* IPv46AddressField is a bit more readable than IP46AddressField, and fits
closer with existing convention
The form field, in it's to_python(), normalises the value that it has, so
"2001:0::2" will be turned into "2001::2", as recommended by the RFCs. The
rationale for this behaviour is that if one user enters "2001:0::2" and
another enters "2001::2", in most cases, I want that to be turned into the
same record. The behaviour can be disabled with an optional parameter.
I have added docs and pretty extensive tests, so I believe the patch is
complete.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/811#comment:54>
Django <https://code.djangoproject.com/>
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django updates" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-updates@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
django-updates+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/django-updates?hl=en.
