Re: Conventions around plugable backends

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Adrian Holovaty wrote: > My preference is (slightly) for class-based, because it's (slightly) > less magic. I think we should try to avoid requiring people to > remember what to name things. I like this as well, albeit for a slightly

Re: Conventions around plugable backends

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Adrian Holovaty wrote: > Unless Jacob feels strongly otherwise, let's go with class-based. Nope, I don't feel strongly at all. I think I agree that I've a slight preference for the explicitness of naming the class "out loud," so let's do

Re: Conventions around plugable backends

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 6:17 AM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > So, I'd like to call for a quick BDFL judgement. Everyone else should > feel free to weigh in with opinions if they have opinions, > preferences, or especially compelling arguments either way. My preference is

Re: Conventions around plugable backends

On topic, I'm +0 on class-based approach. There's actually one passage that reminded me of something that I consider a small wart in a couple of places in Django: Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > Module-based configuration: > --- > > * The aesthetic of user-configuration

Re: Conventions around plugable backends

Just wanted to add that the decision need not go either way; one possible solution would be to leave it up to the implementation and live with both conventions in the core. Sent from a mobile phone, please excuse any typos. On Dec 7, 2009 7:17 AM, "Russell Keith-Magee"

Re: Conventions around plugable backends

I slightly prefer class-based configuration. Karen -- 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