I guess i thought the core developers would've added this proposal to the list (judging from the title of this thread).
Regardless, even if this had been added, it would've been given a -1 anyway, judging from the readiness of this feature. More importantly though, my gripe about this is that if you go through a search for this feature, you would see entries from 2006. Over the last 2 years, there were multiple threads on this and yet nothing was really done to it. How many time have we seen attempts at integrating sqlalchemy and django? And really what features did people intend to add? It's really obvious (at least to me) that it's for the multi db support and composite primary key (I mean exactly what else does sqlalchemy do better, ok more backends, what else?). Why don't people get this? And let me correct myself a bit. It's not that no one has done anything, it's just that people have been only writing bits and pieces of hacks here and there to patch the flaws, but this problem has proven to be more difficult than just patches. For example, there are numerous suggestions in this thread in the API of the model. However, SO WHAT? does it matter? I like both. Both have merits. THEN WHAT? what about the admin layer, what this and that relationship, what about these recursive thing. Almost every one of these composite key threads had been stalled somewhere either in admin or the model api that nothing substantial was done. (usually a thread like this goes on a few 10s of exchanges and finally left cold...just like this one). And I think this is not the developers' fault. I think fundamentally there are 2 reasons for this: 1. the original design of the orm is not up to the task so that extending it proved to be too difficult. As have been mentioned in numerous places, the orm is one place where loose coupling should be taken with a grain of salt. 2 lack of leadership. To deal with this difficult situation, it is important to have the big guys like JKM (ok i don't know any other obvious names, but JKM here represent the core team) to say, "ok now let's address the orm issues and this has to be done before release of 1.1" and so the smart minds of everyone else will start churning AND making those opinionated decisions that django is so famous for (which most of time is really brilliant). But no, JKM never has any interest in this because either he doesn't work in an enterprise environment anymore (because he's too successful unlike the rest of us still working in an Office Space envrionement) or django had seen tremendous growth even without it, why bother. (what i mean to say here is JKM, please post a note on the main site and mobilize your goons to address this issue. I am pretty sure it would be done before i go to work tomorrow). Finally, don't get me wrong, i love django and python. It is simply the best language and best web framework out there for me (where enterprise reporting fit beautifully into a micro-app type of architecture instead of pylons or turbogears full blown application architecture for each report). But the orm really drives me crazy. Of course we all wrote custom managers, and overriding save to deal with the composite key short comings, but come on, there's gotta be some more pythonic (battery-included, there's only 1 obvious way) way of dealing with this. Frank On Nov 16, 12:12 pm, "Karen Tracey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Frank Liu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > @#$%!.....will this composite primary key feature be included in > > Django 2.0? Or will this be ever included? Let me explain my > > frustration a bit. > > [snipped] > > Did I miss something? Your note makes it sound like the core team actively > prevented this proposal from being considered for 1.1. I don't believe that > is the case. > > Jacob posted this note: > > http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/msg/0b517e283421034b > > to this list on September 15. The last paragraph of that note stated: > > Proposing features for 1.1 > ========================== > > To propose features for 1.1, make a post on django-dev, and add a link to > your message athttp://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/Version1.1Features. > > That's not an onerous procedure; anyone could propose anything for 1.1 > consideration, and that wiki page was available for editing for something > like two months (actually a bit longer than the published schedule had said > it would be). If you wanted this feature so much, why did you not do > something to make sure it got posted as a proposal on the wiki page? > > Karen --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
