On 12/2/06, Rob Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But isn't it also dangerous to code (or not code) for future cases that > may or may never come? If a non-relational database backend isn't > anywhere on the current horizon, why not code aggregates and groups to > the current usage and break BC when they arrive, possibly at the Django > 2.0 transition? Just a devils advocate thought.
Agreed; YAGNI is a valid concern. However, the Django ORM has gone to such length to keep it self clean and object based - breaking the metaphor for one feature would be a great shame. One way to think about the problem is to consider how you would write the documentation for it. "Django implements an object based SQL wrapper... except for the aggregations stuff, which you will need to know SQL to use properly". If the documentation sounds like it will be ugly, so is the implementation :-) So; lots to think about, but don't let that discourage you. As this thread has shown, there is plenty of interest in having aggregates - the discussion will probably be long, but if we can get something productive out of it, Django will be all the better for it. Yours, Russ Magee %-) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
