On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <ja...@jacobian.org> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 9:35 PM, bendavis78 <bendavi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I'd like to start a discussion on this since russelm closed the >> issue. There are a few other people that believe the issue should be >> left open. I've been using this patch for nearly two years, and have >> found it to be useful in several different cases. I disagree that >> the .raw() functionality is a sufficient alternative, as it is not >> possible to modify an existing queryset using .raw(). For example, >> if I have a function that accepts a queryset, I want to be able to >> modify that queryset by giving it a extra info for the JOIN and SELECT >> clauses. > > .extra() was a kludge that existed because .raw() didn't. Frankly, I'm > considering deprecating and removing .extra() entirely:
Yes. Yes Yes Yes. Yes. Oh, and Yes. +1. > I've rarely > seen a case where using it didn't come back to cause problems in the > future. I'm certainly going to be a strong -1 on adding any more > "features" to .extra(). Agreed. From an engineering perspective, extra() is the single most fragile part of the ORM. Dumping extra would make me extraordinarily happy. Yours, Russ Magee %-) -- 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.
