Doh! I just had a read through the dispatcher code and there's a lot more going on there than I previously thought (possibly due to the frequency of signal requests, like you mentioned).
On Dec 17, 3:52 am, "James Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 17, 2007 3:39 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Tell me if I'm crazy here, but what if LogEntry objects were created > > upon emission of some signal? That way, other apps could hook in and > > log their own actions as well, along with removing the admin's > > dependency on auth. It could go into django.contrib.logging or > > something. > > > What do you guys think of that? > > I think it's a bad idea. Signal dispatch involves much, much, much, > much, *much* more overhead than a simple method call, so using a > signal where there's no clearly-defined need for it always gets a -1 > from me (despite the popularity of "define a signal for X" requests on > this list). > > Also, I don't think that the admin's LogEntry model needs to be, or > should be, exposed in this fashion. It's logically part of the > administrative interface, and trying to force it into a "generic > logging" hole is probably a bad idea. > > -- > "Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct -- the best kind of correct." --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
