Integrating polymorphic queries in the framework

What about integrating polymorphic features in the ORM? It's like having the features of django-polymorphic but in the core. The polymorphism could be acheved by: 1. Having contenttypes installed (this is a common pattern). 2. Specifying a root (first ancestor) model class like:

Re: Integrating polymorphic queries in the framework

n 6, 2014 at 6:49 AM, Luis Masuelli <luisfm...@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> What about integrating polymorphic features in the ORM? It's like having >> the features of django-polymorphic but in the core. >> >> The polymorphism could be acheved by: >> 1. Havi

Is this a bug?

I'm opening a django console (to narrow the problem) and run this line: for sesion in SesionJuego.objects.filter(preguntas__respuesta__isnull=True): print sesion, sesion.pk Where: * printing is just a sample operation. I'm getting the same error (I'll describe later) with any loop

Websockets... again

Is there any current development involving including websockets in django core? -- 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

Is there a reason these features cannot be added inside Django core?

These features are pretty core-related. 1. Features from django-polymorphic. To mantain bw compatibility, the hierarchy parent could need to add something like polymorphic=True in the meta to this feature be activated. 2. Something like this snippet regarding Inlines in admin:

Make ManyToMany fields support "to_field".

Currently, if I want to create a ManyToMany relationship, I'm stuck with two options: - Accept the by-default configuration. This will imply the inner table will have two fields based on the respective PKs. - Create a through-model. I will be able to specify two foreign keys, one

I would like to discuss my proposal for a working way to call .add() on an m2m with through= model

I was reading this link in the official history and this other link in this group , but still do not understand why the issue against a way to call .add() to add a

Re: I would like to discuss my proposal for a working way to call .add() on an m2m with through= model

I'm quite happy to see the topic is at least being considered! <3. Although I suggested a solution, I like the solution posted by Collin in the PR (I'd prefer solutions not involving signature changes in methods, but anyway those signature changes Colin posted are not so... obtrusive). I'd