Re: Adding a OneToMany Relationship to Django

It's less efficient because of the extra table but that's pretty much the only option when you need a FK on a model that you can't edit. GFK are not exactly efficient either, yet most will agree that it's sometime the best option to a given problem. I agree that the distinction between FK and

Re: Proposal: make Model __unicode__() default to self.name

Luke beat me to it... We have a couple of abstract models which will fall through a small list of field names, trying to guess a useful default for __str__ ... but it makes me feel dirty every time I see it. Beyond "blessing" a particular (set of?) field names as default str names... this also

Re: Proposal: make Model __unicode__() default to self.name

What makes “name” special. Why not “label”, “title”, “code”, or any number of other things that people use internally? It also seems like you could solve this very easily by creating a stub model: from django.db import models class MyModel(models.Model): class Meta:

Re: Adding a OneToMany Relationship to Django

On 07/10/2013 05:40 PM, Carl Meyer wrote: >> I'm not sure I completely agree with Carl that is breaks correspondence >> -- after all, m2m fields don't correlate to a field, either. However, in >> the absence of a built-in migrations framework, I suspect a O2M field >> would be a pretty efficient

Re: Adding a OneToMany Relationship to Django

Hi Russ, On 07/10/2013 05:33 PM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Curtis Maloney > > wrote: > > I've seen enough people in #django suffering because they need a > FKey on a table they simply can't

Re: Adding a OneToMany Relationship to Django

I've seen enough people in #django suffering because they need a FKey on a table they simply can't alter -- be it because it's in a 3rd party app, or simply a table their DBA won't permit them to alter, or what have you. In the end they wind up having to create the equivalent of a m2m through

Re: Adding a OneToMany Relationship to Django

I totally agree that we can't have a field on one model that modifies the underlying table of another model, especially with migrations in mind. That said, I see value in a OneToManyField backed by a M2M with a unique constraint on one side. This is particularly useful when you don't want to

Oracle users -- which first, Python 3 or Oracle 12?

Hi Oracle users, As you may be aware, Oracle 12 was released last month, and Django 1.6 declares Python 3 fully supported. As you may also be aware, Django currently cannot be tested with Oracle 12 [1] or with earlier Oracle under Python 3 [2], so these two must be declared unsupported for the

Re: Regarding 3D model in Django

Sometime the answers can be a bit harsh and multiple people reply immediately, which probably gives the impression of being scolded. Maybe we could have a template with careful wording that we use every time. We could also forward the message to django-users like a moderator would do on a