In case anyone is interested, I have come up with a solution to the
problem of importing foreign data that seems to work pretty well, at
least for my project. The components are as follows:
1. A custom Serializer/Deserializer pair of classes which are
subclassed on those in django.core.serializ
On 1/30/08, Waylan Limberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Speaking of which, I see that link is included on the contributing
> page, but not anywhere else. The "new ticket" page still recommends
> using 'settings', which doesn't work quite as well.
I've just changed that.
Jacob
--~--~-~--
> I'd like to deprecate initializing models using positional arguments
> (i.e. ``p = Person(1, 'Joe Somebody')``) in favor of only allowing
> keyword-argument initialization (i.e. ``p = Person(id=1, name='Joe
> Somebody')``).
+1 from me. I've been doing some interesting model stuff lately and
th
I'm +1 for deprecating positional arguments from __init__().
> Relying on the order of fields in the model definition is asking for a
> heaping load of fail. Hence my desire to see it go away.
While I agree this argument applies for having positional args in
__init__(), those instantiating using
You can register here: http://www.djangoproject.com/accounts/register/
Speaking of which, I see that link is included on the contributing
page, but not anywhere else. The "new ticket" page still recommends
using 'settings', which doesn't work quite as well. I had thought from
previous discussions
If you register the spamfilters are disabled
On Jan 30, 2008 5:20 PM, onno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Uhm, each time I want to post a bug via the bugtracker in the
> documentation. I get a error "500, a potential spammer" is something
> wrong.
>
> Here my bug:
>
> http://www.djangoproject.co
Uhm, each time I want to post a bug via the bugtracker in the
documentation. I get a error "500, a potential spammer" is something
wrong.
Here my bug:
http://www.djangoproject.com/documentation/authentication/#default-permissions
The docs state that the permissions only show up "are created" w
On 1/30/08, Nicola Larosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, wait, make that +1 to erasing the ruttin' posargs "feature" from the
> gorram *language*. Dong ma?
Whoa, now, don't go quoting Firefly on me or we'll be here all day :)
Jacob
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You rec
On 1/30/08, Ned Batchelder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not arguing against removing positional argument support from model
> constructors, just wondering about the 1.0 focus.
Yeah, you're totally right that the feature is a perfect post-1.0
candidate. I'm just using it as a vehicle for getti
On Jan 29, 2008, at 10:51 PM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
> On Jan 30, 2008 8:17 AM, Joseph Kocherhans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> I ran into a situation today where for every future site I set up,
>> I'll want to load an initial_data fixture, but for some existing
>> sites
>> that I
I would have thought Adrian's deferred fields proposal would fall
squarely in the post-1.0 bucket. It clearly has no backward
compatibility issues, so it can be added after 1.0. Maybe you aren't
proposing to include it in 1.0; it wasn't clear from your message.
I'm not arguing against removi
11 matches
Mail list logo
