Hello, Ian Kelly schrieb: > On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Gregor Kling > <gregor.kl...@dvz.fh-giessen.de> wrote: > >> Hello there, >> >> Regrettably the IPAddressField implementation is not what I expect :-(. >> Is there by any chance, the possibilty to have a solution that works for >> ipv4 *and* ipv6 in the near future ? >> > > See ticket #811: http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/811 > Hm, thanks for the link Ian. But I have some problems to understand the actual state of the patch. It is not yet in the trunk right now. So will it make it in 1.1 ?
Barring the actual state, I do not have a good feeling about this patch. Foremost, I think IPy really should be used, last but not lease to follow DRY. From a design point of view, I think the IPAddressField should rule all ip versions. Certainly it is not a bad idea, to have IPv4 and IPv6 versions of this field. gfk --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
