#4 seems reasonable to me, with #3 as a runner-up. As you said: the
majority of users can ignore the new setting, which makes it far less
of a burden while still offering flexibility.
All the best,
- Gabriel
On Dec 3, 7:56 pm, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been looking at #14
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Russell Keith-Magee <
russ...@keith-magee.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been looking at #14799, and trying to work out the best approach
> for a solution. I can see three options, none of which are are
> particularly attractive. I'm looking for feedback on which o
Hi all,
I've been looking at #14799, and trying to work out the best approach
for a solution. I can see three options, none of which are are
particularly attractive. I'm looking for feedback on which one smells
the least.
First off - the problem:
* The test framework needs to create test databa
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:36 PM, Andrew Godwin wrote:
> So, one of the complaints I've heard from a few people now is the fact
> that 404 is the only thing one can raise as a HTTP error - there are
> plenty of others, such as 403 and 405, that could be useful to raise
> back to the client.
>
> Thi
So, one of the complaints I've heard from a few people now is the fact
that 404 is the only thing one can raise as a HTTP error - there are
plenty of others, such as 403 and 405, that could be useful to raise
back to the client.
This didn't used to be much of a problem with function-based views -
On 12/03/2010 10:04 AM, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
You probably don't want to use those aliases. Instead, you should use
a separate alias namespace for
embedded object filters. Otherwise you'll have to deal with the
complex JOIN code in the backend unnecessary. Aliases for embedded
objects could j
Ian's comments were spot-on. And it's extremely helpful when a
critique comes complete with a better solution.
I've uploaded the improved code patch. Docs & tests unchanged.
Have a good time sprinting. And thanks for the assist.
Kent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to t
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Jonas H. wrote:
> On 12/01/2010 08:04 AM, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
>>
>> In the end JOINs will be a rather complicated solution. I thought
>> that's why you wanted to extend the ORM directly to handle embedded
>> fields in a special way. That should be easier and c
