Re: Why does get_profile exist?
Hi, On 13.04.2009, at 22:30, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > Why do get_profile() and AUTH_PROFILE_MODULE exist, instead of just > declaring the Profile to User relationship as OneToOne and using the > auto-generated User.profile relationship? > > I just changed my Profile's User relationship from ForeignKey to > OneToOne (the docs say to use ForeignKey, not OneToOne--is this an > error?) and it works fine. > > It does mean you can access the profile without knowing the name of > the class, but you need to know the contents of the model to do > anything with it anyway. Do user profiles predate reverse > relationships? I'm just curious about the the design rationale here. > oh, and this list is for the development of django. Question about the usage of django should be directed at django-users. adi --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Why does get_profile exist?
On 13.04.2009, at 22:30, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > Why do get_profile() and AUTH_PROFILE_MODULE exist, instead of just > declaring the Profile to User relationship as OneToOne and using the > auto-generated User.profile relationship? Probably because third party apps can then get the user profile and don't have to rely on the profile being called profile or whatever. adi --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: IPAddressField
Hi, On 14.03.2009, at 19:22, Gregor Kling wrote: > > Hello, >> The way I read the comments on the ticket the last patch supports >> IPv4 >> and IPv6 address. >> See: http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/811#comment:16 > > Adi, if you mean this: >* attachment ipv6-9781.diff added. >IPv6 patch for trunk, revision 9781 > yes you are right, there was added an IP6AddressField that handles the > ipv6 stuff. > The existing IPAddressField further on cares about the IPv4. The IP6AddressField also handles IPv4 addresses, as mentioned in the docs section of the patch. +.. class:: IP6AddressField([**options]) + +An IPv4 or IPv6 address, in string format (e.g. "192.0.2.30" or +"2a01:5d8:25ae:9451:20d:39bc:1e6:cab:b2c"). The admin represents this as an + (a single-line input). and I guess the IPAddressField didn't get changed because the IPv6 addresses need a longer database field, so changing the IPAddressField would break backward compatibility. adi --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: IPAddressField
Hi, On 14.03.2009, at 10:20, Gregor Kling wrote: > > Hello, > Ian Kelly schrieb: >> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Gregor Kling >> wrote: >> >>> Hello there, >>> >>> Regrettably the IPAddressField implementation is not what I >>> expect :-(. >>> Is there by any chance, the possibilty to have a solution that >>> works for >>> ipv4 *and* ipv6 in the near future ? >>> >> >> See ticket #811: http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/811 >> > Hm, thanks for the link Ian. > But I have some problems to understand the actual state of the patch. > It is not yet in the trunk right now. So will it make it in 1.1 ? > > Barring the actual state, I do not have a good feeling about this > patch. > Foremost, I think IPy really should be used, last but not lease to > follow DRY. > > From a design point of view, I think the IPAddressField should rule > all > ip versions. > Certainly it is not a bad idea, to have IPv4 and IPv6 versions of this > field. > The way I read the comments on the ticket the last patch supports IPv4 and IPv6 address. See: http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/811#comment:16 adi --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
