Re: What do people think about the get_absolute_url proposal?

On Dec 8, 3:23 am, Rick Yazwinski wrote: > I think that this may be too simplified: >         protocol = getattr(settings, "PROTOCOL", "http") >         domain = Site.objects.get_current().domain >         port = getattr(settings, "PORT", "") > > Many sites put load

Re: What do people think about the get_absolute_url proposal?

Mike Malone wrote: > In my opinion, using the Site module and settings files is damn > annoying. My point is that we better fix these annoyances than leave this way of doing things altogether. > I never use the Site module This is by itself is not the reason why it might be annoying. Django

Re: What do people think about the get_absolute_url proposal?

Michael Richardson wrote: > With these cases (the former more so than the latter) you are creating > URLs for an entirely separate project, not your own, essentially. Not "entirely separate". These are projects sharing much of the codebase, just having different SITE_ID in settings. Anyway

Re: What do people think about the get_absolute_url proposal?

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 4:51 PM, SmileyChris wrote: > > > On Dec 17, 8:57 am, Alex Gaynor wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Mike Malone wrote: >> > How's that different than the current situation, where we return an >> >

Re: What do people think about the get_absolute_url proposal?

On Dec 17, 8:57 am, Alex Gaynor wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Mike Malone wrote: > > How's that different than the current situation, where we return an > > absolute URL reference that can be converted into an absolute URL > > using

Re: What do people think about the get_absolute_url proposal?

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Mike Malone wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Alex Gaynor wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Mike Malone wrote: The way i see it (which may be wrong), this is not a proposal to

Re: What do people think about the get_absolute_url proposal?

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Alex Gaynor wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Mike Malone wrote: >>> The way i see it (which may be wrong), this is not a proposal to make >>> the request object global or replace/refactor the contrib.site app.

Re: What do people think about the get_absolute_url proposal?

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Mike Malone wrote: >> The way i see it (which may be wrong), this is not a proposal to make >> the request object global or replace/refactor the contrib.site app. In >> fact, some of the use cases mentioned strike me as things that would >>

Re: What do people think about the get_absolute_url proposal?

> The way i see it (which may be wrong), this is not a proposal to make > the request object global or replace/refactor the contrib.site app. In > fact, some of the use cases mentioned strike me as things that would > require overriding the default get_absolute_url method anyway. It > seems to me

Re: What do people think about the get_absolute_url proposal?

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: > > > On Dec 15, 4:35 am, Ivan Sagalaev wrote: >> Mike Malone wrote: >> > Well, not really. It's making a way to generate a URL based on the >> > request object global. I agree

Re: What do people think about the get_absolute_url proposal?

On Dec 15, 4:35 am, Ivan Sagalaev wrote: > Mike Malone wrote: > > Well, not really. It's making a way to generate a URL based on the > > request object global. I agree that it's not ideal, but it's not the > > same as just making the request object global. > > My

Re: What do people think about the get_absolute_url proposal?

Mike Malone wrote: > Well, not really. It's making a way to generate a URL based on the > request object global. I agree that it's not ideal, but it's not the > same as just making the request object global. My main gripe is not globalness of a request object itself (I agree with "not ideal"

Re: What do people think about the get_absolute_url proposal?

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Ivan Sagalaev wrote: > Mike Malone wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Russell Keith-Magee >> wrote: >>>  4. I share Mike's concern about using settings.SITE_ID to determine >>> the current host, but I'm

Re: What do people think about the get_absolute_url proposal?

Mike Malone wrote: > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Russell Keith-Magee > wrote: >> 4. I share Mike's concern about using settings.SITE_ID to determine >> the current host, but I'm not sure I have any suggestions on how we >> could practically use request, short of

Re: What do people think about the get_absolute_url proposal?

+1 to get_url -- 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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more

Re: What do people think about the get_absolute_url proposal?

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: >  4. I share Mike's concern about using settings.SITE_ID to determine > the current host, but I'm not sure I have any suggestions on how we > could practically use request, short of encouraging the use of a >

Re: What do people think about the get_absolute_url proposal?

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 6:43 AM, Simon Willison wrote: > This made it to the 1.2 feature list: > > http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/ReplacingGetAbsoluteUrl > > If we want this in 1.2, it could be as simple as merging the get_url / > get_url_path methods in to the base

Re: What do people think about the get_absolute_url proposal?

I'd much rather have this information come from the current request vs. coming from settings. Relying on the Site is particularly annoying. I like the implementation of build_absolute_uri() in django.http.HttpRequest. The hard part is getting the request object to a place where it's usable by

Re: What do people think about the get_absolute_url proposal?

I brought this up during the 1.1 dev schedule and if I remember correctly the response was "let's have it painted red" and it seemed like it wasn't considered a practical problem. The reason I think this is an issue is the same reason that I get frustrated whenever I see a pull-style handle on a

Re: What do people think about the get_absolute_url proposal?

BTW, generally I like this idea... :) On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Rick Yazwinski wrote: > I think that this may be too simplified: >        protocol = getattr(settings, "PROTOCOL", "http") >        domain = Site.objects.get_current().domain >        port =

Re: What do people think about the get_absolute_url proposal?

I think that this may be too simplified: protocol = getattr(settings, "PROTOCOL", "http") domain = Site.objects.get_current().domain port = getattr(settings, "PORT", "") Many sites put load balancers and https hardward acceleration in front of their web interfaces. This

What do people think about the get_absolute_url proposal?

This made it to the 1.2 feature list: http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/ReplacingGetAbsoluteUrl If we want this in 1.2, it could be as simple as merging the get_url / get_url_path methods in to the base Model class, rolling a few unit tests and writing some documentation. It feels like we