On Sat, 2008-10-04 at 21:36 -0700, Thejaswi Puthraya wrote: > Hi, > I was going through the patch by carljm for #8630 [1] and decided to > give it a try. I ran into troubles but not with the patch. The reason > being comment templatetags reference 'is_public' [2] and > 'is_removed' [3] fields of the Comment Model. > > The idea for comments customization was to push essential fields onto > BaseCommentAbstractModel and then inherit from this model. This would > reduce the need to rewrite templatetags but I screwed this while > sending patches just before the merge into trunk. > > I can think of two solutions to solve the problem. The first one being > http://dpaste.com/82448/ and the second one (http://dpaste.com/82449/) > to push the 'is_public' and 'is_removed' fields onto the > BaseCommentAbstract Model. Both these changes are backward-compatible.
The second approach does introduce an incompatibility. Anybody who has created a model using that ABC would now have to alter their tables. It's not part of the guaranteed stable API, so it's not impossible to change, but does introduce a backwards-incompatible change. For that reason I would slightly prefer the first approach at the moment. But I want to think a bit more about what the common fields for any comment customisations should be. I don't have a clear idea about that in my head at the moment. Regards, Malcolm --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
