Hi David,
Thanks for response. I understand it now. I was assuming that Value auto
typecasts to the field that we are querying. This makes sense.
Thank you for taking time to respond.
Cheers
Nitin
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 3:52:17 AM UTC-4 David Sanders wrote:
> Hi Nitin,
>
> Not sure
Hi Nitin,
Not sure what db you're using but will explain assuming PG.
In this particular example, Django uses the `->` operator which requires
that we compare jsonb types. The `__in=("Program1", "Program2")` is
converted to jsonb via `DatabaseOperations.adapt_json_value()` where as
`Value()`
Hi
I recently came across a very interesting scenario. I have a JSON Field
which I want to query on. I was trying to do some performance
optimizations and came across this
If I query a non-JSON field like this:
Study.objects.all().filter(study_id__in=[Value("Tes1"),Value("Test2")])
and
I think we already have this no?
See https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/4.1/ref/databases/#s-third-party-notes
for a list of 3rd party DB backends.
On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 at 10:31, Vasanth Mohan wrote:
> I second Jörg about better maintainability with tighter integrations.
>
> However, for the fun
I second Jörg about better maintainability with tighter integrations.
However, for the fun of stirring the pot, what's the opinion on letting
Django define an API for the ORM and letting a library deal with the
DB-specific implementation that generates the SQL for query? Django could
have a
I tend to believe the opposite is true. Django was/is a successor in its
field, because it offers an "out-of-the-box" or "batteries included"
experience. Subsequently parts were shaped as needed for that bigger
picture, e.g. the ORM became what it is today.
Does anyone still remember django
Hi,
Given the small number of Django ORM maintainers, making the ORM standalone
will, among other things, increase the adoption of Django and bring in new
maintainers.
An ORM inspired by Django ORM with over 3000+ stars:
https://github.com/tortoise/tortoise-orm
--
You received
Hi Adam,
I agree with some of your points. however djngo orm query syntax is the
main pain point for anyone new to django orm. The reason those packages
are not widely used is because most people dont know about them and not
about this DEP. And most new users mainly end up learning built
I would not be for merging anything into Django at this time.
There are several libraries providing "enhanced" query syntax:
django-orm-sugar, django-model-values, and django-natural-query. None of
them seems to be particularly popular (<100 github stars, minimal PyPI
downloads), an
Hey all,
can we have some consensus on this?
Asif
On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 12:55:27 PM UTC+6 Alexey Zankevich wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> Please check a draft DEP related to external query language support by
> Django ORM https://github.com/django/deps/pull/40.
>
>
This is the mailing list for the development of Django itself. Please use
django-users for messages like this.
On Monday, January 27, 2020 at 4:27:01 PM UTC-5, Charlotte Dillon wrote:
>
> https://pypi.org/project/django-cockroachdb/
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
https://pypi.org/project/django-cockroachdb/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
Hello,
I would suggest https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgV39DlmZ2U if you'd like
to understand how the ORM is structured in layers.
--
Aymeric.
Le lun. 13 mai 2019 à 12:16, Adam Johnson a écrit :
> Yes there isn't much documented on the ORM internals, but there are other
> resources. The
Yes there isn't much documented on the ORM internals, but there are other
resources. The DUTH videos are a great start and inspired me to get started
contributing to Django. Specifically:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGF-0csOjPw
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4jhPRfCRSM
-
Great, thanks
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 1:17:08 PM UTC+4:30, J. Pic wrote:
>
> Hi Mahdi,
>
> I would suggest reading the code and test code in the tests/ directory for
> the ORM.
>
> There might also be some videos from Django Under The Hood conferences,
> found some here:
>
>
Hi Mahdi,
I would suggest reading the code and test code in the tests/ directory for
the ORM.
There might also be some videos from Django Under The Hood conferences,
found some here:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Django+Under+The+Hood+orm=vid
Best
--
You received this message because you
is a big package and contains lots of modules, I found
it very difficult to understand the changes in the pull requests.
Do you know any good resource about the internal structure of the django
ORM? a blog post perhaps, anything to help me get started on the ORM
internals.
--
You received
com > *On Behalf Of *Raghavendrachari
> k
> *Sent:* 29 August 2018 09:42
> *To:* django-d...@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Django : Change Backend as mysql and create sample example
> using django ORM
>
>
>
> Hi Sonali,
>
> Could you please paste the models.py
Of Raghavendrachari k
Sent: 29 August 2018 09:42
To: django-developers@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Django : Change Backend as mysql and create sample example using
django ORM
Hi Sonali,
Could you please paste the models.py file ??
Might be there is some syntax error in the models you have created
Hi Sonali,
Could you please paste the models.py file ??
Might be there is some syntax error in the models you have created.
Regards,
Raghav
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:41 PM parmeshwar deharkar <
parmeshwardehar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi sonali
> you install sql libray in your project package
hi sonali
you install sql libray in your project package then edit the setting.py
file at django framework with database .
I hope your problem will be solve...
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 4:54 PM Sonali Vighne
wrote:
> Hi,
> I have tried a lot to change Django back-end as MySQL but not able to
>
]
DATABASES = {
'default': {
'ENGINE': 'django.db.backends.mysql',
'NAME': 'hospital',
'USER': 'root',
'PASSWORD': '',
'HOST': 'localhost',
'PORT': '3306'
}
}
From: django-developers@googlegroups.com
On Behalf Of Raghavendrachari k
Sent: 27 A
This list is dedicated to the discussion of developing Django itself, not
answering usage questions. You might try the django-users group (
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/django-users), or StackOverflow.
On Monday, August 27, 2018 at 9:41:30 AM UTC-4, Raghavendrachari k wrote:
>
> if
if you explain briefly what is the issue you are facing , then we can can
answer you !
Thanks
Raghav
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 4:54 PM Sonali Vighne
wrote:
> Hi,
> I have tried a lot to change Django back-end as MySQL but not able to
> achieve this.
> please help for the same.
>
> thanks in
Hi,
I have tried a lot to change Django back-end as MySQL but not able to
achieve this.
please help for the same.
thanks in advance. :)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe
Thank you all for the replies.
@Josh Smeaton
Essentially yes; specifically I was wondering whether I was failing to
consider behaviour that couldn't be modeled via a Q object, since as you
mention the current
These queries are actually not equivalent. Consider the following code:
>>> r = Related.objects.create(field='related')
>>> r.main_set.create(field_one='1', field_two='3')
>>> r.main_set.create(field_one='2', field_two='4')
>>>
It sounds like you understand what the current behaviour is, and you think
that it would be better modelled with Q objects, is that the case? I can
see where you're coming from, as even the docs explain the difference
loosely in terms of AND and OR.
Q(entry__headline__contains='Lennon') &
On 03/30/2018 08:57 AM, Ryan Hiebert wrote:
It's a subtle difference between how a single filter works and two
filters work together over to-many relationships. Here's a writeup that
I found helpful:
https://blog.ionelmc.ro/2014/05/10/django-sticky-queryset-filters/
It's also addressed in
It's a subtle difference between how a single filter works and two filters
work together over to-many relationships. Here's a writeup that I found
helpful: https://blog.ionelmc.ro/2014/05/10/django-sticky-queryset-filters/
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Andrew Standley
I have recently become acquainted with some ORM behaviour for reverse
relationships that "makes no sense", and I'm hoping someone can explain the
justification for the current behaviour.
This specifically relates to `filter` behaviour referenced in 29271
Hey all,
Please check a draft DEP related to external query language support by
Django ORM https://github.com/django/deps/pull/40.
Regards,
Alexey
On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 10:07:51 AM UTC+3, Asif Saifuddin wrote:
>
> Hi Aric,
>
> I checked your package. it's nice
y(FExpr(user__created), descending=True)
>
> In []: F.text.iexact('...')
> Out[]:
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 10:04:56 AM UTC-7, Alexey Zankevich wrote:
>>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> Just want to announce recent changes in Django ORM Sugar library, w
r(user__created))
In []: -F.user.created
Out[]: OrderBy(FExpr(user__created), descending=True)
In []: F.text.iexact('...')
Out[]:
On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 10:04:56 AM UTC-7, Alexey Zankevich wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
> Just want to announce recent changes in Django ORM Sugar librar
>>
>> I also like how lightweight the library is altogether. Well done!
>>
>>
>> For those looking for a direct link, here you go:
>> https://github.com/Nepherhotep/django-orm-sugar
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 1:04:56 P
re DRY.
>
> I also like how lightweight the library is altogether. Well done!
>
>
> For those looking for a direct link, here you go:
> https://github.com/Nepherhotep/django-orm-sugar
>
>
>
> On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 1:04:56 PM UTC-4, Alexey Zankevich w
+1 from me. I really like this approach to help making my queries more DRY.
I also like how lightweight the library is altogether. Well done!
For those looking for a direct link, here you
go: https://github.com/Nepherhotep/django-orm-sugar
On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 1:04:56 PM UTC-4
Hey all,
Just want to announce recent changes in Django ORM Sugar library, which
might be useful in future Django query syntax enhancement (if ever happens).
1. Now it supports indexes and slices:
>>> Q.data.owner.other_pets[0].name='Fishy'
Q(data__owner__other_pets__0__name='Fishy')
&
>
> >> >>>>>>>>> 1. Make Lookup.__init__ signature to support initialization
> with
> >> >>>>>>>>> F
> >> >>>>>>>>> objects
> >> >>>>>>>>&
t;>> 1. Make Lookup.__init__ signature to support initialization
> with
> >> >>>>>>>>> F
> >> >>>>>>>>> objects
> >> >>>>>>>>> or string path (e.g. GreaterThan(F('use
rt
>> 1.
>> >> >>>>>>>> Part 1
>> >> >>>>>>>> may
>> >> >>>>>>>> drive some of part 3.
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> Cheers
>>
t; >> >>>>>>>>> F
> >> >>>>>>>>> objects
> >> >>>>>>>>> or string path (e.g. GreaterThan(F('user__id'), 10) or
> >> >>>>>>>>&g
>>>>>>>>> moving it
>> >>>>>>>>> to a separate class method, e.g Lookup.build(lhs, rhs)), so I
>> >>>>>>>>> assume
>> >>>>>>>>> creating so-called util classes wh
possible to perform complicated conditions (AND, OR,
> NOT).
> >>>>>>>>> In that case lookup/transform parsing should be moved from
> >>>>>>>>> QuerySet
> >>>>>>>>> object
> >>>>>>>>>
t__icontains='Bob') will internally
>>>>>>>>> parse
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> and build next structure:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Q(Icontains(Lower(Unaccent(F('user__name', 'Bob')
t;>>
>>> >>> >>> Let's take a concrete example of querying a model:
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> &
> >>> 1. Long strings is hard to read, especially if we have fields
>> with
>> >>> >>> underscores.
>> >>> >>> It's really easy to make a mistake by missing one:
>> >>> >>>
>> >>>
t;> >>> >>> Let's take a concrete example of querying a model:
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> >>>
>>> GameSession.objects.filter(user__profile__last_lo
extended with custom transforms and lookups
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> However, there are several cons:
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> 1. Long strings is hard to read, especially if we have fields
>> with
>>
gt; >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Not easy to catch missing underscore between user and profile, is
> it?
> >>> >>> Even
> >>> >>> though, it's not easy to say whether it should be "user_profile"
> >>> >>> attribute or
> >>> >>
date:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> GameSession.objects.filter(user__profile__last_login_date__gte=yesterday)
>>> >>> >>> \
>>> >>> .o
the
>> >>> expression we use a keyword argument, meanwhile in the second part -
>> just
>> >>> a
>> >>> string. And thus we just have to type query path twice.
>> >>>
>> >>> 3. Lookup names not natural to Python language and require to be
>> >>> rem
t; >>> to be
> >>> confused with "ge" and "le" due to similarity to methods "__ge__" and
> >>> "__le__".
> >>>
> >>> 4. Lookup keywords limited to a single argument only, very
> inconvenient
> >>> wh
e up with solution to extend Q objects with dot
>>> expression syntax:
>>>
>>> >>> GameSession.objecs.filter(Q.user.profile.last_login_date >=
>>> >>> yesterday)
>>>
>>> Q is a factory instance for old-style
tance for old-style Q objects. Accessing attribute by
>> dot
>> returns a child factory, calling factory will instantiate old-style Q
>> object.
>>
>> >>> Q
>>
>>
>> >>> Q.user.profile
>>
>>
>> >>> Q(
rators, so comparing factory with value returns a related Q
> object:
>
> >>> Q.user.name == 'Bob'
>
>
> Factory has several helper functions for lookups which aren't related to
> any
> Python operators directly:
>
> >>> Q.user.name.icontains('Bob')
>
>
> And helper to get query path as
Hi Josh,
As https://github.com/django/django/pull/5090 pull request merged into
master, I wanted to extend django-orm-sugar library with some
functionality, related to passing transforms or lookup objects. Currently
it's not clear to me how lookups or transforms can be used in that way.
I'm
le transforms) as well as the dot field reference
> >>> > notation you've proposed above. Then we can consider how all these
> >>> > things
> >>> > might work together, and clearly document why we've gone one way and
> >>> > not
&
;> > might work together, and clearly document why we've gone one way and
> >>> > not
> >>> > another. Obviously, alternatives can exist outside of core where the
> >>> > API is
> >>> > available.
> >>> >
> >>> > I
tside of core where the
> >>> > API is
> >>> > available.
> >>> >
> >>> > I'll be happy to work as the shepherd if needed. But I'd also like
> some
> >>> > input from Loic and Anssi especially, as well as others in the
;> >
> >>> > I'll be happy to work as the shepherd if needed. But I'd also like
> some
> >>> > input from Loic and Anssi especially, as well as others in the core
> >>> > team
> >>> > with some interest in the ORM.
> >>
ad. So I think your
>>> >>> > idea
>>> >>> > here could nicely coexist:
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > GameSession.objects.filter(Equal(Date(Q.user.profile.last_login),
>>> >>> > datetime.now().date))
>>> >>&g
;> > references, and since the Lookups (Equal/GTE) parts accept F
>> >>> > expressions
>> >>> > anyway. I'm not too concerned about this particular detail though.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > A DEP is probably the right way to go here but I wonder if w
vailable.
> >>> >
> >>> > I'll be happy to work as the shepherd if needed. But I'd also like
> some
> >>> > input from Loic and Anssi especially, as well as others in the core
> >>> > team
> >>> > with some interest in th
ay to go here but I wonder if we should
>> >>> > expand
>> >>> > the scope to include alternative filter syntax as a whole
>> >>> > (expressions/callable transforms) as well as the dot field reference
>> >>> > notation you've proposed above. Then
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On Sunday, 16 August 2015 23:18:26 UTC+10, Alexey Zankevich wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Hi all,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> This topic is related to the current ORM quer
> >>> >
> >>> > On Sunday, 16 August 2015 23:18:26 UTC+10, Alexey Zankevich wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Hi all,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> This topic is related to the current ORM query syntax
; >>>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> GameSession.objects.filter(user__profile__last_login_date__gte=yesterday)
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Pros:
>>> >>
>>> >> 1. The syntax is easy to unde
ot;
>> attribute
>> >> or
>> >> user.profile foreign key.
>> >>
>> >> 2. Query strings can't be reused, thus the approach violates DRY
>> >> principle.
>> >> For example, we need to order results by last_login_da
y path twice.
> >>
> >> 3. Lookup names not natural to Python language and require to be
> >> remembered or
> >> looked up in documentation. For example, "__gte" or "__lte" lookups
> tend
> >> to be
> >> confused wi
lly I came up with solution to extend Q objects with dot
>> expression syntax:
>>
>> >>> GameSession.objecs.filter(Q.user.profile.last_login_date >= yesterday)
>>
>> Q is a factory instance for old-style Q objects. Accessing attribute by
>> dot
>&g
returns a related Q
> object:
>
> >>> Q.user.name == 'Bob'
>
>
> Factory has several helper functions for lookups which aren't related to
> any
> Python operators directly:
>
> >>> Q.user.name.icontains('Bob')
>
>
> And helper to get query path as s
lookups which aren't related to any
Python operators directly:
>>> Q.user.name.icontains('Bob')
And helper to get query path as string, which requred by order_by or
select_related queryset methods:
>>> Q.user.profile.last_login_date.get_path()
'user__profile__las
HI Anshuman,
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Anshuman Aggarwal <
anshuman.aggar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Russ,
> Notwithstanding the performance, the current solution of doing 1000
> updates in a single transaction using ORM appears to be (in pseudocode
> below):
>
>
>
>
>
>
> as
Wouldn't a manual transaction (suitably rolled back after a bunch of
changes) retain atomicity as well?
The proposed solution using the UPDATE FROM from_list ... syntax and
based on the postgres documentation link (below) does not seem to be any
inferior to doing a single UPDATE XYZ SET A =
No, it doesn't. The atomicity semantics of update() are impossible to
implement without it, this isn't the case for a multi-object UPDATE as far
as I can tell.
Alex
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Anshuman Aggarwal <
anshuman.aggar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the input Javier. Wouldn't
Thanks for the input Javier. Wouldn't a similar argument hold for:
UPDATE books_book
SET
price = 10 where pk = 1, price = 25 where pk = 2 .
Such a single SQL statement would also have similar benefits to having much
less data to prepare, send and interpret vs having multiple update
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Anshuman Aggarwal
wrote:
> The idea of having a .update() ORM construct is to be able to do this
> without having to fall down to a manual transaction every time, otherwise
> why have a DB level .update()...I am sure the performance of
Hi Anshuman,
As I mentioned when you raised this issue 2 days, ago:
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/bac70fe2-3bbb-45c9-b805-5469e89f2754%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer
if you can provided evidence to back up your claim, I'll reverse my
position on the need
Posting this Django Project ticket that I opened to track the enhancement
request to update multiple rows with different values for the same field
for a particular Django queryset in a single SQL query without having to
write raw SQL. Please see the discussion there.
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Javier Guerra Giraldez
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:18 PM,
> wrote:
> >
> > Wouldn't an easy (i.e. straightforward) solution be to add an Django
> "ODM"
> > that mirrors the ORM wherever it makes
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:18 AM, wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 8:12:43 PM UTC-6, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>>
>>
>> My claim is that complete abstraction of the data store shouldn't be the
>> goal. What we should be aiming for is sufficient API
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:18 PM, wrote:
>
> Wouldn't an easy (i.e. straightforward) solution be to add an Django "ODM"
> that mirrors the ORM wherever it makes sense? This sounds pretty close to
> your second solution, except choosing SQL vs NoSQL means
On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 8:12:43 PM UTC-6, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
>
> My claim is that complete abstraction of the data store shouldn't be the
> goal. What we should be aiming for is sufficient API compatibility to allow
> for two things:
>
> * ModelForms wrapping a model from a
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:41 AM, Aymeric Augustin <
aymeric.augus...@polytechnique.org> wrote:
> On 17 déc. 2013, at 20:38, Karen Tracey wrote:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/django-developers/0IuJssTt8tc/TxdXQ2D0thcJ
>
>
> Interesting. Now I remember reading that
On 17 déc. 2013, at 19:53, Javier Guerra Giraldez wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Aymeric Augustin
> wrote:
>> Django’s ORM is entirely designed to translate between an object oriented
>> API and SQL. That’s what its name says.
On 17 déc. 2013, at 20:38, Karen Tracey wrote:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/django-developers/0IuJssTt8tc/TxdXQ2D0thcJ
Interesting. Now I remember reading that message last year. I have three
reactions.
First, Russell and I agree that the interest has faded.
e, and a sql
> submodule. There's very little SQL content in the base query module. That's
> so that we can add a "noSQL" module at some later date. We've also been
> aggressive about adding SQL-specific features (e.g., HAVING clauses, GROUP
> BY clauses) to the ORM API.
so, now
So knowing what it takes to use the
django ORM to work with a NoSQL DB, I hope I can provide some useful
information.
There are a few issues that we run into, so you can see that they are not
fundamental problems.
1. Things you can do on a SQL system that you can't on NoSQL.
- The big ones
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Aymeric Augustin <
aymeric.augus...@polytechnique.org> wrote:
> On 17 déc. 2013, at 19:53, Javier Guerra Giraldez
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Aymeric Augustin
> > wrote:
> >> Django’s
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Chris Wilson <ch...@aptivate.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> On Tue, 17 Dec 2013, Tom Evans wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:35 PM, parisrocks
>> <saravanan.sellathu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Wa
Hi Chris,
On 17 déc. 2013, at 17:50, Chris Wilson wrote:
> There is no particular reason NOT to do it, unless one wants Django's ORM
> layer to remain fundamentally tied to SQL.
I don’t understand your sentence. To me it’s as if you were saying “there is no
particular
Hi all,
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013, Tom Evans wrote:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:35 PM, parisrocks
<saravanan.sellathu...@gmail.com> wrote:
Waiting for official Django ORM support for NoSql databases.
MongoDB (and the vast majority of NoSQL databases) are not relational
databases, they are do
goDB, there's a great community of NoSQL users waiting for an official
> ORM support from Django like me. I would say Django with NoSQL ORM support
> could actually make it more popular compared to its rivals Ruby on Rails or
> even Java for that reason.
>
> Waiting for official Dj
Django with NoSQL ORM support
could actually make it more popular compared to its rivals Ruby on Rails or
even Java for that reason.
Waiting for official Django ORM support for NoSql databases.
Thanks
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django devel
s probably too hard for me to implement in even near commit-
> quality.
>
> These features would naturally make the ORM more powerful, but I see
> some objections to these features:
> 1. They will make the already complex ORM even more complex. This
> will result in new bugs and it
naturally make the ORM more powerful, but I see
some objections to these features:
1. They will make the already complex ORM even more complex. This
will result in new bugs and it will be harder to add new features to
the ORM.
2. Django ORM has the philosophy of "80/20". Meaning that the
Hi all,
Have django developers planned the integration of new model fields
capable to store multidimensional data ? If it's not the case, how can
I submit this implementation request ?
By implementing this kind of basic types, I think it could be a way
for the Django project to reach the
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Russell Keith-Magee <freakboy3...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:20 AM, P.R. <crico...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have question about type of design patterns using in Django ORM. It
> > is: Table
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:20 AM, P.R. <crico...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have question about type of design patterns using in Django ORM. It
> is: Table Data Gateway, Row Data Gateway, Active Record or Data
> Mapper? .. Personally I think that it's mix of Row Da
1 - 100 of 136 matches
Mail list logo