Steve, the way I had this working, you could share things with a natural
order (blog posts, a custom even model I had made) between sites but not
pages, due to the ordering complexities you mentioned. There was not
performance difference between using a FK and a m2m for the site[s] field.
I think we could incorporate this to allow sharing Displayable/SiteRelated
models with a natural order and just not support sharing pages. If someone
was really keen on sharing pages they could easily create their own
models/admin to do that in a separate app without having to worry about
using a custom/patched version of Mezzanine. For reference for anyone
following along, here were my changes,
https://bitbucket.org/joshcartme/mezzanine/compare/sites_m2m..stephenmcd/mezzanine:default#diff
Basically I think it will add some more flexibility to Mezzanine without
any drawbacks and we can continue to not support sharing pages between
sites to avoid the complexity of that.
Alexander, I haven't done anything else towards this besides what is
discussed above. If you do work on this please let me know any drawbacks
you come across.
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 9:05 PM, Stephen McDonald st...@jupo.org wrote:
This probably doesn't have much chance of being included - it will most
likely introduce an unwarranted increase in the complexity of how the page
tree works. For example, all of a sudden you need to deal with the ordering
of shared pages in the context of each site. Certainly not unsolvable, but
probably not in a clean and simple way.
Just some food for thought before embarking on anything. :-)
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Alexander Kominek
alexander.komi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey Josh,
I'm trying to set up M2M for sites on one of my current sites and I
stumbled across this thread. Has any more work been completed on this in
the last year to bring it up to date with the latest version of Mezzanine?
If not, I'll probably end up updating it, but I just wanted to make sure
I'm not duplicating any work.
Thanks!
On Monday, January 7, 2013 at 3:28:15 PM UTC-7, Josh Cartmell wrote:
Thanks again Steve, that blog post and your pointers helped me figure
out a good direction to take. For anyone else tracking along I moved the
migrations into a separate app which is here:
https://bitbucket.org/joshcartme/mezz_sites_m2m
One thing to note is that I had to change the calls to the orm since the
migrations no longer reside in the app they modify. If this ever makes it
into Mezzanine core we would probably want to change the orm calls back to
the way they were.
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Josh Cartmell joshc...@gmail.com
wrote:
Thanks Steve, that post is pretty useful. I'll give it a go.
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Stephen McDonald st...@jupo.org
wrote:
Luke Miller (ex-colleague of mine) wrote a good post on how he does it:
http://dodgyville.tumblr.com/post/23028930440/new-fields-
in-mezzanine-without-editing-or-creating-a
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 7:05 AM, Josh Cartmell joshc...@gmail.com
wrote:
Thanks Steve, I didn't realize I could put migrations in a different
app so that's very helpful!
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Stephen McDonald st...@jupo.org
wrote:
I haven't had a chance to look at this yet myself. As for the
migrations, you could probably put your one into a separate app, and
if/when your changes get merged into the main project, just fake the
(redundant) migration for it.
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Josh Cartmell joshc...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hey everyone, I just wanted to check in and see if this is still on
the radar at all?
I'm about to use this in a project so if it's not does anyone have
any
suggestions for how I should manage migrations? Would I just need
to
always edit every future migration to reflect the divergent db
schemas?
Thanks for all the feedback thus far.
On Nov 19 2012, 12:42 pm, Josh Cartmell joshcar...@gmail.com
wrote:
Sounds good, thanks Steve!
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Stephen McDonald
st...@jupo.org wrote:
I haven't gone over the code in detail yet, just waiting for
some space to
be able to do that. But as far as what we've discussed so far
I'm all in
favour of the feature and approach.
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Josh Cartmell
joshcar...@gmail.comwrote:
In regards to the changes I have made I just did a little
performance
profiling (using Django debug toolbar) and surprisingly the
same number of
queries are executed to render the About page of a vanilla
Mezzanine
project regardless of whether you are using a foreign key or
the m2m
versions of sites that I implemented. I'm wondering if
Django's current
site manager does some sort of performance tweaking since it is
specifically built to handle m2m's or foreignkeys. I haven't
made any
improvements in regards to performance.
With that in mind the changes I have made so
