Way back in ticket http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/1278, Adrian
declared that a settings context processor was not going to happen. The
reason being that it could give template authors direct access to the
db password / secret key.
Recently I coded up
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> http://code.djangoproject.com/attachment/ticket/2070/3581-streaming_uploads_and_uploadprogress_middleware_code_cleanup_review.diff
One thing I disagree with is that streaming on disk is done
unconditionally. This is very good for files the size of tens of
megabytes
My pleasure :D
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 [EMAIL
On 8/18/06, medhat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a suggestion (with a patch) to save a few key clicks :-)
> Do you ever write a template with {% block ... %}{% endblock %} tags
> solely as placeholders to be overridden by other templates? I find I am
> doing this a lot... and I am too lazy
Oops, I see it now. Thanks!
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
Hi,
I have a suggestion (with a patch) to save a few key clicks :-)
Do you ever write a template with {% block ... %}{% endblock %} tags
solely as placeholders to be overridden by other templates? I find I am
doing this a lot... and I am too lazy to type the {% endblock %} each
time :-) so I
At 12:07 PM 8/18/2006, Dirk wrote:
>waylan schrieb:
> >
> > Karen Tracey wrote:
> >> If what works for admin can't/shouldn't/won't be generalized, then
> >> maybe some documentation enhancements would help out people like me.
> >
> > See the page "How to serve static files"[1] in the docs. Then,
On 8/18/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I came across http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/CookBookThreadlocalsAndUser
>
> Since this middleware depends on
> django.contrib.auth.middleware.AuthenticationMiddleware and its context is
> very related
> to the request.user object I
Hi all,
I came across http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/CookBookThreadlocalsAndUser
Since this middleware depends on
django.contrib.auth.middleware.AuthenticationMiddleware and its context is very
related to the request.user object I was wondering if this is related enought
to become an
It's determined by the settings under the admin options. By default
both are set to false, so no permissions will be creation. To do what
you want:
...
class Admin:
grant_change_row_level_perm = True
...
That should just set the change row levle permission and not set any
delete row level
I noticed in the patch(3609,
http://code.djangoproject.com/changeset/3609) that you seem to grant
permissions automatically to the creator of an object. Is there any
way we can set this behavior? In my circumstance, I don't want the
writer of an article to be able to delete it.
Chris Long
Hi all,
waylan schrieb:
>
> Karen Tracey wrote:
>> If what works for admin can't/shouldn't/won't be generalized, then
>> maybe some documentation enhancements would help out people like me.
>
> See the page "How to serve static files"[1] in the docs. Then, be sure
> to read "The big, fat
http://code.djangoproject.com/attachment/ticket/2070/3581-streaming_uploads_and_uploadprogress_middleware_code_cleanup_review.diff
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post
olive wrote:
> Graham Dumpleton August 17, 2006 at 11:59 p.m.
>
> You really need to provide an explanation of why the worker MPM cannot
> be used and the prefork MPM must be used.
Uhm... I would not say that it 'cannot' be used. It can (after some long
time ago threading issues with db
Hi Adrian,
Thanks for explanation.
I am also against bundling any JS toolkit with *core* framework.
--
Regards,
Max
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this
On 8/18/06, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure, I'd be happy to explain -- my (very strong) preference is to
> bundle *no* JavaScript toolkit. That's partially because we shouldn't
> limit which toolkit developers use, and partially because it's
> unnecessary bloat within the
Malcom,
The context of this comment is
http://www.djangoproject.com/documentation/modpython/#c2029
What I would like to know is if something has been done or will be to
ensure that Django works along with mod_python 3.3.
As far as I understand this will allow us to run any taste of Apache in
On 18 aug 2006, at 15.07, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 05:54 -0700, olive wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> Have you read the following from Django Comments, what do you
>> think of
>> it ?
>
> This seems to be in response to some question. What is the context,
> though? What was
On 8/17/06, Max Derkachev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I have not looked at this branch at all, but I'll strongly suggest
> > that you remove the YUI stuff.
>
> Adrian, could You explain your opinion a bit more?
> Does that mean that there are plans to bundle another toolkit? If yes,
> what
Karen Tracey wrote:
>
> If what works for admin can't/shouldn't/won't be generalized, then
> maybe some documentation enhancements would help out people like me.
See the page "How to serve static files"[1] in the docs. Then, be sure
to read "The big, fat disclaimer" on that page. That should
On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 05:54 -0700, olive wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Have you read the following from Django Comments, what do you think of
> it ?
This seems to be in response to some question. What is the context,
though? What was the original question and where was this posted? Was
there a
Hi folks,
Have you read the following from Django Comments, what do you think of
it ?
Graham Dumpleton August 17, 2006 at 11:59 p.m.
You really need to provide an explanation of why the worker MPM cannot
be used and the prefork MPM must be used. The reason is that this
doesn't make a lot of
On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 11:14 +, xgdlm wrote:
[...]
> [Fri Aug 18 13:00:52 2006] [error] [client 10.0.0.199] PythonHandler
> django.core.handlers.modpython: TypeError: unsupported operand type(s)
> for +: 'float' and 'str'
This almost always means you're passing a string where an integer is
Hello all,
I'm face an issue while using the cache middleware :
[Fri Aug 18 13:00:52 2006] [error] [client 10.0.0.199] PythonHandler
django.core.handlers.modpython: File
"/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/django/utils/cache.py", line 161, in
learn_cache_key\ncache.set(cache_key,
Something I've noticed that trips up a lot of people, both new Django
users and old, is the way the 'default' argument for model fields
works; there's a disconnect between what it actually does and what
people commonly assume it does, based largely in when the default
value is filled in:
1. The
25 matches
Mail list logo
