-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/05/2011 08:31 AM, Yo-Yo Ma wrote: > While I agree that signals allow for neat decoupling, they aren't as > DRY or quick as a simple field kwarg. Imagine you have 8 models that > have custom delete methods. Which is easier: A) avstracting the > functionality of each of the 8 delete methods into helper functions > and writing signals for all 8, or B) typing on_delete=CALL_DELETE? How > will this question be answered, objectively?
Clearly the latter. But "what is easier to type" is not, of course, the only relevant consideration. A couple notes: 1. Implementing the proposed on_delete handler would require a major reworking of how on_delete handlers function. Currently, they allow for modifying the list of objects to be deleted, but not changing how the delete actually happens. To make the latter possible, while still doing things correctly w.r.t. deletion ordering in the presence of FKs, etc, would be far from a trivial patch. 2. The proposal would have abysmal performance characteristics on a large delete. Thus, it would have to come with big red warnings in the docs. I'm generally averse to adding features that require big red warnings in the docs. Carl -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk7c6ioACgkQ8W4rlRKtE2d2mgCgq0bOAHbMj4b9qbAeeeTi9VUx PFYAoNiYP5+g9r/EbNiy6qj17oKlPmfP =TblP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- 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.
