Hi Jonathan, I am undecided on this one, when I first looked at it I thought it was a great idea but now I feel it would be more problematic to read and traverse and update such code due to the ModelFactory > MyModelFactory > MyModels logic flow. It feels a lot like using class based views – exciting at first but quickly the paradigm became complicated to understand and traverse when used beyond the base examples (at least in my case and until I understood it well enough). It also seems the current abstract model mechanism can do everything a model library can minus the model prefixing and the model grouping; that though I would just tackle using a naming convention, i.e. SimpleLibraryBook, ExtendedLibraryBook, with a BaseBook abstract class.
Also where would the code live model_libraries.py ? I think explicit is better then DRY in this situation. This my opinion and as such can change - thank you for considering it. From: Jonathan Slenders Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 9:55 AM To: django-developers@googlegroups.com Subject: Model inheritance extended. Hi everyone, This may be interesting to some of you. I created a small library for inheritance of a set of models. It's best to go quickly through the Readme on the site below. We felt a need for this, but I'm wondering whether some kind of inheritance like this has been discussed before. And whether, if useful, this would make a candidate for django.db. https://github.com/citylive/django-model-blueprint Cheers, Jonathan -- Daniel Sokolowski http://webdesign.danols.com/ -- 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.
