Re: Possible bug in messages framework?

2010-01-23 Thread Luke Plant
On Saturday 23 January 2010 14:29:55 Tobias McNulty wrote: > That said, I have reservations about any kind > of across-the-board encoding because it makes it necessary, > when/if the cookies need to be read by JavaScript, to implement > that same decode/encode on the client side. We actually

Re: AnonymousUser has_perm/has_module_perms function check authentication backends

2010-01-23 Thread Harro
I just thought of another way this might be possible: signals. Just add them to the anonymous user functions. The signal would get passed a variable holding the currently returned result, and then returns it. That way you can hook into it and modify the result without breaking the current behaviou

Re: Feedback: Syndication feed views

2010-01-23 Thread Ben Firshman
Is it too late to sneak this in in as a minor feature? I have some time now, so I can write up some more documentation if it's needed. Ben On 4 Jan 2010, at 13:07, Ben Firshman wrote: > Is there any more documentation that I should write before the feature > freeze tomorrow? > > Thanks, > >

Feedback requested: One last time with multi-db

2010-01-23 Thread Russell Keith-Magee
Hi all, This is a call for comments on what I hope will be the last two modifications to multi-db support for 1.2. Barring negative feedback, I aim to commit this at the start of next week, just in time for the beta-1 feature freeze. Change 1: Identifying which models are on which database -

Django_birth = datetime(1910, 1, 23)

2010-01-23 Thread András Boroska
>>> (datetime.today()-Django_birth).days/365 >>> 100 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+u

Re: Possible bug in messages framework?

2010-01-23 Thread Tobias McNulty
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Luke Plant wrote: > On Saturday 23 January 2010 02:44:39 Luke Plant wrote: > > > BTW, further research shows that we are not really RFC 2109 > > compliant at all, but then again no-one is. It seems virtually > > everyone (server side and client side) is using

Re: #9015 — signal connection decorator

2010-01-23 Thread Brian Rosner
On Jan 23, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Ulrich Petri wrote: > Just an idea: > > Wouldn't it be a bit nicer API to have receiver be a method on Signal? > So you could do: > > @pre_save.receiver(sender=MyModel) > def my_receiver(sender, **kwargs): >... > This isn't a bad idea. It does reduce an import

Re: #9015 — signal connection decorator

2010-01-23 Thread Ulrich Petri
Hi, Am 23.01.2010 um 14:01 schrieb Brian Rosner: from django.db.models.signals import pre_save from django.dispatch import receiver @receiver(pre_save, sender=MyModel) def my_receiver(sender, **kwargs): ... Just an idea: Wouldn't it be a bit nicer API to have receiver be a method on Si

#9015 — signal connection decorator

2010-01-23 Thread Brian Rosner
Hey all — I wanted to get some feedback on a patch [1] I wrote for #9015. I am on board with the notion decorators can be used for registration patterns. Recently, I've been using signals a bit more which has spiked my interest in this ticket. Since Django 1.2 has a Python 2.4 minimum requireme