On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > My point is that there is nothing about this problem that is unique to User. > Django's own codebase contains another example of exactly the same pattern -- > Comments. As the original author and designer of that pattern, I should probably point out that I now think it's a mistake. Have you actually tried using it? It doesn't really work very well. Every time I've introduced any sort of "swappable model" mechanism I've come to regret it.
I'm -1 on the idea of generalized "swappable model" mechanism. I can stomach it for User because in this context it's not any worse than the alternatives, but as a generalized mechanism it makes me really, really unhappy. Decoupling is a laudable goal, but providing a mechanism to reach in and effect code not under your control isn't good design. We use derisive terms like "monkeypatching" for a reason. I'm sure there are good reasons for wanting swappable models. Russ, I know you're smarter than me, so the fact that you want LazyForeignKey so much probably indicates that you've got some really solid use cases in mind. But really this is a hard veto from me; I just can't be convinced that this sort of mechanism is anything but bad news. However, I don't see why we should actively prevent this sort of thing being done externally, so if there's anything in Django that's precluding the creation of a LazyForeignKey as an external add-on let's consider that limitation a bug and get it fixed. Jacob -- 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.
