A proposal for a new auto-reloader in Django

Hi, I'm David Ma, a first-year Science student from the University of British Columbia. I'm a enthusiastic Django developer and have four years Python programming experience. I've read through the posts about replacing the current autoreloader and would like to work on this task during GSoC. I

Re: Changing how Channels/ASGI receives messages

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Oskar Hahn wrote: > Hi, > > I am not sure, if I understand your proposal correctly. Do you mean, the > asgi server has to listen only to one channel or do you mean it has to > listen to one channel of any channel-type? > > So with redis, do I

Re: Changing how Channels/ASGI receives messages

Hi, I am not sure, if I understand your proposal correctly. Do you mean, the asgi server has to listen only to one channel or do you mean it has to listen to one channel of any channel-type? So with redis, do I have to call "BLPOP LOCALID TIMEOUT" or do I have to call "BLPOP

Re: Changing how Channels/ASGI receives messages

I have added that in to the spec: http://channels.readthedocs.io/en/latest/asgi.html#capacity Andrew On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Artem Malyshev wrote: > Yes, I saw your changes after I wrote my previous email. > > Global capacity for process sounds reasonable.

Re: Changing how Channels/ASGI receives messages

Yes, I saw your changes after I wrote my previous email. Global capacity for process sounds reasonable. Probably we should state it in spec. Regards, Artem. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)"

Re: Changing how Channels/ASGI receives messages

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 6:27 AM, Artem Malyshev wrote: > Hi everyone, > > It can be huge improvement for asgi_rabbitmq layer. But I'm asking > you to keep this change in the experimental branch before I implement > it for RabbitMQ layer. More questions can came up in

Changing how Channels/ASGI receives messages

Hi everyone, It can be huge improvement for asgi_rabbitmq layer. But I'm asking you to keep this change in the experimental branch before I implement it for RabbitMQ layer. More questions can came up in progress. For me it is still unclear how to implement `channels_capacity` option for

Re: Deprecate is_superuser, is_staff and is_active

On Tuesday 28 March 2017 03:52:59 guettli wrote: > Am Montag, 27. März 2017 16:11:06 UTC+2 schrieb Melvyn Sopacua: > > On Friday 24 March 2017 04:31:32 guettli wrote: > > > I know this is a crazy idea, and it will get the "won't fix" tag > > > very > > > > > > soon. > > > > > > > > > > > >

Re: Changing how Channels/ASGI receives messages

That sounds like a massive improvement and goes in line with the issues I've observed. On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 3:51:20 AM UTC+2, Andrew Godwin wrote: > > Hi all, > > I wanted to ask your feedback on a proposed change I want to make to the > ASGI spec for channel layers. > > In particular,

Re: Deprecate is_superuser, is_staff and is_active

If you want to query for each user with given permission, then the query seems to be this (unfortunately not tested as I don't have a nice database to test this against): users = User.objects.filter( Q(is_superuser=True) |

Re: Deprecate is_superuser, is_staff and is_active

Am Montag, 27. März 2017 16:11:06 UTC+2 schrieb Melvyn Sopacua: > > On Friday 24 March 2017 04:31:32 guettli wrote: > > > I know this is a crazy idea, and it will get the "won't fix" tag very > > > soon. > > > > > > Nevertheless I want to speak it out. > > > > > > My use case: Get a queryset