+1 for this.
Use case: in one of our projects we had to mark fields allowed for
publishing. Using additional meta option would be great for that and I've
regretted that it's impossible.
W dniu wtorek, 10 września 2013 06:27:29 UTC+2 użytkownik Karan Lyons
napisał:
>
> Hey all,
>
> I
On 2013-09-10 21:05, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> So - I think custom Meta options are something that should be
> *possible*. I don't have any particular ideas for how it should be
> implemented, though.
One of the areas I've considered trying this is annotating "private"
information about
On Sep 10, 2013, at 7:05 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> I share James' reservations about this as a feature -- attaching flags to
> Meta is something I can see being abused in all sorts of ways -- but that
> doesn't mean there's no legitimate uses for extensions to
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Marc Tamlyn wrote:
> I'm not sure either way on this one. I don't want people to get carries
> away with Meta, it's not a dumping ground for any old thing you like. That
> said, for a developer of a third party library which extends the
I'm not sure either way on this one. I don't want people to get carries
away with Meta, it's not a dumping ground for any old thing you like. That
said, for a developer of a third party library which extends the ORM, the
inability to extend Meta is very problematic.
I think a balance could be
Hey all,
I recently opened up a ticket (https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/21081)
that turns out to be a dupe of https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/5793,
both in regards to allowing custom attributes in a model's Meta class.
It was wontfix'd six years ago, the reasoning being that Meta