Hello James, > On 01 Aug 2016, at 15:03, James Pic <james...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Aymeric, it doesn't matter if tens of milions of names fit into your > model, it only takes one to have a issue that's going to require the > project developers to invest time in it.
I’m not an adept of the “worse is better” school of thought. I believe that fixing the problem for 99,9999% of people while not creating new problems for anyone matters. There will always be cases where django.contrib.auth doesn’t work ideally. What matters is the ability to argue that a particular case is enough of an edge case not to be worth dealing with, and the person who finds themselves in that case to expect and accept that answer. Clearly “name over 30 characters” isn’t sufficiently rare to meet this criterion. (It was fine when it just had to work for LWJ’s staff.) Some organizations will have a cost/benefit approach to this question. Making the problematic cases less frequent reduces the chances that the benefit of fixing them justifies the cost. Then developers don’t have to invest time in it. Other organizations will reject the notion of cost and have a more philosophical approach; that’s harder to discuss in general but solving a problem while not introducing any new problems still makes the situation better for them. At the very least they get a better base to build upon. Anyone who likes using an absurdly long last name, for whatever reason, and enjoys typing it just to get a “name too long” error message on every website knows how to fix it: use a subset of their name. They’re already doing it whenever they fill a form, whether on paper or on screen. Paper forms usually don’t have room for writing names on multiple lines. Can you just let use improve the situation for tens of millions of Brazilian users? It doesn’t cost you, or anyone else, anything. Just let us make things better for tens of millions of people and not make them worse for anyone. To be extremely clear, let me repeat once again: I’m not trying to make django.contrib.auth to work for everyone, I know that it still won’t work for everyone and I accept that my proposal doesn’t attempt to solve the problem of names entirely. It has been abundantly explained in this thread why it’s impossible to do something that works for everyone anyway. If we wanted to do something that worked for significantly more people, we’d start by dropping the first / last name fields. You’re welcome to make a proposal in that direction, but I would kindly ask you to do it a a new thread and let us solve that stupid name length problem for tens of millions of Brazilian users in this thread. > So I'm a bit lost about what's the most practical approach here. Per my definition of “practical”, fixing 99,9999% of a problem with a very small effort like I suggested is a practical approach. -- Aymeric -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/ED879BC4-F89D-48D6-9B09-2778FBDBF998%40polytechnique.org. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
