, August 25, 2012 9:35:02 PM UTC+2, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
>
> I have done some more ORM refactoring work. I thought it would be a
> good idea to post a summary of what is going on.
>
> First, I haven't committed the utils.tree refactoring patch I was
> planning to commit [https://g
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> My view is these things are 100% undocumented, 100% internal, anyone using
> them is 100% on their on. Simply put, if we can't make changes to these APIs
> without having to worry, what's the point in having a backwards
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Anssi Kääriäinen
> wrote:
> > I'd like to postpone these to early next month so that I have more
> > time to help in reviews and pushing some new features in.
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Anssi Kääriäinen
wrote:
> I'd like to postpone these to early next month so that I have more
> time to help in reviews and pushing some new features in. Other
> options are postponing review work, and postponing these patches to
> 1.6.
As
On 25 elo, 22:35, Anssi Kääriäinen <anssi.kaariai...@thl.fi> wrote:
> I have done some more ORM refactoring work. I thought it would be a
> good idea to post a summary of what is going on.
>
> First, I haven't committed the utils.tree refactoring patch I was
> plan
Anssi,
I just got back from holiday. I hope to be able to review at least some
of these patches within the next 2 weeks. If you don't hear from me in
that time, I'd encourage you to carry on anyway.
Thanks,
Luke
On 25/08/12 20:35, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
> I have done some more ORM refactor
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Anssi Kääriäinen
<anssi.kaariai...@thl.fi>wrote:
> I have done some more ORM refactoring work. I thought it would be a
> good idea to post a summary of what is going on.
>
> First, I haven't committed the utils.tree refactoring patch I was
&g
I have done some more ORM refactoring work. I thought it would be a
good idea to post a summary of what is going on.
First, I haven't committed the utils.tree refactoring patch I was
planning to commit [https://github.com/akaariai/django/commits/
refactor_utils_tree]. The reason is that I now
On 10/10/2011 04:59 PM, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
In the perfect world you could have a SQLA backend, or qs.as_sqla()
method. That would be neat, yes. QuerySet chaining could be hard to
implement, though (or does SQLA have support for something like
that?). But in my opinion this is another
ld be nice to know if there is support
> for ORM refactoring.
I am not sure the "wrapper around SQLAlchemy" idea is at all feasible,
for any number of reasons; it's certainly not an idea that should hold
up other improvements.
I do think there are parts of the ORM that could really benefit from the
On Oct 10, 4:13 pm, Luke Plant wrote:
> One of the problems is that it can be very hard to review refactorings.
> For example, I recently checked in rev 16929 [1] from ivan_virabyan's
> patch, and reviewing it was hard, despite the fact that it was a very
> good quality
ORM
> is just fine now, or that there are higher importance items. Before
> continuing my hacking, it would be nice to know if there is support
> for ORM refactoring.
It was me who suggested the idea of basing the ORM on SQLAlchemy in
future, on my blog [2]. It would be a very large ch
opposite direction and make it a wrapper around SQLAlchemy
> (I saw this mentioned somewhere some time ago). Or decide that the ORM
> is just fine now, or that there are higher importance items. Before
> continuing my hacking, it would be nice to know if there is support
> for ORM refa
. Before
continuing my hacking, it would be nice to know if there is support
for ORM refactoring.
Thank you for your time,
- Anssi Kääriäinen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email
14 matches
Mail list logo