On Sun, 2008-11-16 at 15:55 -0800, Frank Liu wrote: > Hi Jacob, > > Let me apologize first for using JKM as an alias to the whole core > team. I guess the problem here is that adding this feature really > entail changes in too many areas. It would be nice if you and the > other core team members can set a direction for changes on this issue. > The various patches suggested in those previous threads all seem to > fix one problem while giving rise to another somewhere else. So having > a direction that fundamentally address this issue i think would be a > better approach. >
I'm sorry, but you're essentially 100% incorrect about the maintainership techniques and a large number of your other claims about the ORM. The changes required for composite primary keys are relatively localised. There's more than one place, but there's a limited number of them. For example, since a lot of the logic is already encapsulated by having a "pk" property already, it's mostly those places that need attention. Similarly, despite your beliefs, all the maintainers have have been setting directions for this work in the sense of encouraging, guiding and providing regular detailed feedback, as the most casual regular observer on this mailing list could see. But it's not code production by fiat in the open source world. We aren't going to tell people what to work on, but we do keep an eye on things and also have our own interests that we push along. For a couple of years, there's been fairly coordinated and steady activity towards improvement in various areas, including the ORM. They remain ongoing. Again, as with Jacob, I've been reluctant to respond to this thread because you're just so out of line with your criticisms and the ad hominem attacks are fairly insulting (and since you mentioned me by name and by implication in your attacks on Jacob, I am definitely going to take offence at your mischaracterisations). You happen to want composite primary keys for your particular situation. But in the whole broad scheme of every possible web application and database usage, they just aren't the most common use-case in the world, so will happen in due course when they're done. Yes, they're on the table; have been for quite a while. Which is why they're always part of the equation in ORM design work. The latest round of large ORM changes last year used this case as one influence over quite a lot of the design, contrary to your observations (and I can speak with some authority to that point). If this was/is so blindingly important to you, where's your patch? You are the one with the apparently show stopping need for this and you get paid at least 10 times as much as me to work on Django (even if you get paid $0), so if it's so important to your job, put up or shut up. You are welcome to use Django. We are glad you do. But that doesn't mean you get to post crap like this when your favorite feature isn't yet implemented. > On the other hand, i have to say that I am not too familiar with this > open source style of working on a project. Clearly. > At my company, issues like > this that span across multiple sub sections usually can only be > resolved by management stepping in. One of the reasons why most corporate software is of much lower quality than Open Source software. > From what I've read here in the > user/dev mailing list, it seems that the only reason that this can't > be resolved is due to lack of leadership from above. Nonsense. You're mischaracterising the entire situation. It isn't "not resolved" (whatever definition of "resolved" you happen to want to choose). It's ongoing work that hasn't been finished yet. The bar for quality is high and there are other, simultaneous priorities and limited resources. > (Totalitarian > states usually are pretty efficient in execution...military, another > example...perhaps sqlalchemy could be a third example with MB being > the strong leader). Anyway, i guess by seeing your email I've already > achieved quite a bit. Simply having you recognizing such a problem > again after 2 years i think it's already going somewhere. Perhaps in a > few days we will see some patches coming in. Seriously, put down the weed and step away from the keyboard. Have you followed any of the discussion about this at all? David, myself and a number of others have been having ongoing discussions for a few months in the latest round. It's progressing fairly nicely, given the time we have available and all the other pieces we're all working on as well. As mentioned above, it's also been one of the many, many considerations when designing other pieces of the infrastructure and has been duly waiting in the queue for the appropriate moment to start making the changes (which is around now). The reason the ticket has been open is to indicate it's ongoing work and we haven't been unaware of it. It's just not done yet (see, again, priorities and lack of a complete patch that meets the quality standards). This whole sub-thread has been quite disappointing. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
