Seems to me an intermediary step is to add request.DATA (then maybe
request.QUERY eventually) as a long term movement towards being better
http. It isn't something we should do overnight.
I noticed this patch is now in 1.7 and 1.9 will remove request.REQUEST.
Marc
On 18 Oct 2013 14:55, "Tom
Sorry please ignore my last email, my email client went a bit weird and
sent the draft whilst I was still editing/thinking. Here is the proper
version;
This is yet another reason why I don't think it would be reasonable to
expect field validation within the model.
If the validations were done
> but perhaps we should provide better names for `request.GET` and
`request.POST` at the same time
Sure, I'd absolutely agree in principle, and for what it's worth REST
framework provides `.QUERY_PARAMS` and `.DATA` attributes on the request
which are recommended instead of using `.GET` and
Hi
Just wanted to pitch in as a user of django. I have used request.REQUEST before
for a very specific need but I would +1 for it to go.
The question I would have though is for PUT and DELETE methods, would the
parameters just wind up in request.POST? Maybe this suggests that renaming
On Friday, October 18, 2013 12:03:42 AM UTC+2, lucmult wrote:
>
> I think it's reasonable to assume that by default we want our data to be
> consistent.
>
I disagree, everything which isn't coming from user input should not need
validation, since you really __should__ know what you are putting
On Friday, October 18, 2013 4:28:21 AM UTC+2, Karen Tracey wrote:
>
> Wasn't there also concern for double validation performed during form
> clean and then model instance save?
>
Yes, technically we would probably have to track the validation state per
field and also track changes to it etc…
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 5:48:09 PM UTC+1, Aymeric Augustin wrote:
> While pour point is technically valid as far as request.GET and
> request.POST are concerned, in practice they're so commonly used as a
> metonymy for HTTP GET and HTTP POST that it's worth having a strong stance
> on
On Friday, October 18, 2013 1:31:07 AM UTC+3, Shai Berger wrote:
>
> On Thursday 17 October 2013 08:34:48 Aymeric Augustin wrote:
> >
> > For instance, thread locals are strictly equivalent to regular variables
> in
> > tests because they are single threaded (with a handful of exceptions).
>
On Friday, October 18, 2013 5:28:21 AM UTC+3, Karen Tracey wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Russell Keith-Magee <
> rus...@keith-magee.com > wrote:
>
>>
>>> 1) Without taking backwards compatibility into consideration, is it
>>> reasonable to expect field validation automatically
