Hi,
On Fri, 2006-08-11 at 19:36 -0700, jorgito wrote:
> Hi, i need to import a database in a django proyect. this database was
> create without django. How i can do this ?
This mailing list is for the development of django itself. Please post
queries like this to the django-users list.
In the
Hi, i need to import a database in a django proyect. this database was
create without django. How i can do this ?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group,
So, the mutli authentication seems to work well for the use case of a
site accepting more than one authentication source to access some area,
but not so well for the use case of a site accepting one source of
authentication in one area and another source of authentication in a
different area.
hi,
just a few random thoughts on translation of content. At first i was
leaning towards developing a dependant model for each model which
would hold translations. One thing i have realised is that of all the
field types, only three - CharField, TextField and numeric fields
would need to
On 8/11/06, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As long as it's strictly bug fixes, and no feature additions, that
> sounds fine by me. The reason I say "no feature additions" is that it
> wouldn't be in our best interest to have another competing branch, as
> we did with magic-removal
On 8/11/06, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since I just lost about an hour of my life to dealing with a problem
> in pre-m-r Django which had a fix in Trac that was never applied
> (ticket #1113 for those who are interested), I'm suddenly intensely
> curious about the possibility of
On 8/11/06, Deryck Hodge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know at NDN we're going to be pre-mr for the foreseeable future (and
> probably all of Scripps, too). Even if not an actual release, just
> compiling a set of patches known to be useful for those on pre-mr
> releases would be nice.
+1 from
On 8/11/06, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Back when the magic-removal branch was still going, there were plans
> to roll up a bunch of bugfixes against pre-m-r Django (e.g., 0.91) and
> do a '0.92' or some other form of final release for the old-style
> Django.
>
> Since I just
Back when the magic-removal branch was still going, there were plans
to roll up a bunch of bugfixes against pre-m-r Django (e.g., 0.91) and
do a '0.92' or some other form of final release for the old-style
Django.
Since I just lost about an hour of my life to dealing with a problem
in pre-m-r
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 07:46:19PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I came back to your LDAPSupport. The pre_auth_bind is a little bit tricky
> evan with mk_pre_auth_bind, but I got it (after a while :)
>
Ok, I've done some cleaning with mk_pre_auth_bind. It should be a lot
clearer how to use
On 8/11/06, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 8/11/06, Karl Guertin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'll admit that I haven't really looked into how the admin system
> > works post-magic removal but I could work 90% of the extensions I want
> > if I could 1. register a callback for
This is another case* where using something like setuptools entry
points for loading 3rd-party plugins would make all of these problems
go away. Entry points specifically would impose an additional burder on
app writers, though, because they'd have to register their tag
libraries explicitly in
On 8/11/06, Karl Guertin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll admit that I haven't really looked into how the admin system
> works post-magic removal but I could work 90% of the extensions I want
> if I could 1. register a callback for changes to a particular model
> and 2. Inject javascript into a
> Sure, we'd be open to making the admin app more extensible. Without
> more details, though, I'm not sure what to say. Do you have more
> specific ideas on how we could provide for extensibility of the admin
> app?
I've got a few. These are all things I've butted up against in recent
projects,
On 8/9/06, Tom Tobin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to restore this ability to Django trunk; there are a couple
> of ways I could go about this, and I'd like input as to which would be
> cleaner:
I came up with a third possible way of handling this (which is nearly
identical to the
- Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 05:55 -0400, John Szakmeister wrote:
> > Now that the magic has been removed, and Django released 0.95, I
> decided to start porting my applications over. I knew the merge of
> magic-removal was coming, so I never
On 8/11/06, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure, we'd be open to making the admin app more extensible. Without
> more details, though, I'm not sure what to say. Do you have more
> specific ideas on how we could provide for extensibility of the admin
> app?
I'll admit that I haven't
Hi Scott,
I came back to your LDAPSupport. The pre_auth_bind is a little bit tricky evan
with mk_pre_auth_bind, but I got it (after a while :)
And there seems a problem with pre_auth_bind() and update_user():
You let construct somebody a pre_auth_bind() which search for the dn of a user,
but
Ok, one last change to make it more 'pythonic'. Just a slight change to
make using the pre-auth bind function easier. I think this finishes out
the patch. If there are any other ideas or suggestions, please let me
know.
Scott
(http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/2507/)
--
Scott Paul Robertson
Tom Tobin wrote:
> On 8/4/06, Ahmad Alhashemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > In Rails, template tags can have an extra hyphen at the end to denote
> > the fact that they should consume the newline right after the tag. So:
> >
> > {% some_tag %}
> >
> > Would look like this:
> >
> > {%
On 8/10/06, Steven Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been playing around with trac lately and am rather fond of their
> light weight component architecture [1].
>
> I was wondering if an approach like this may be a good idea for the
> django admin application.
>
> If done right it would
On 8/11/06, e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Even partial disclosure
> would have helped a lot (and it was definitely a possibility, since
> exploiting the flaw requires a combination of unrelated parts of the
> application stack).
For what's worth, my 0.02 cents about this part. The good thing
On Fri, 2006-08-11 at 11:52 +, Michele Cella wrote:
> Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> >
> > I must say, I'm really excited about this change. I've been converting
> > my own stuff to it, and it feels more natural.
> >
>
> I'm not actually using django (yet) but I always wondered why you
> weren't
Adrian Holovaty wrote:
>
> I must say, I'm really excited about this change. I've been converting
> my own stuff to it, and it feels more natural.
>
I'm not actually using django (yet) but I always wondered why you
weren't using callables directly, it's really more intuitive and
pythonic, what
On 6/26/06, Simon Willison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been playing around with making the URL resolver accept a
> callable in addition to accepting 'module.blah' strings, and I think
> it's a big improvement.
OK, we've gained this functionality as of
25 matches
Mail list logo
