Hi,
I'm using such a setup with lighttpd:
fastcgi.server = (
"" => ((
"host" => "127.0.0.1",
"port" => 3456,
"check-local" => "disable",
))
)
without any url.rewrite-once.
In this setup, all URLs are automatically passed to FastCGI (because
of the empty prefix "" in the fastcgi.ser
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think the next step in the unicodeification of django is to decide where
> the conversions happen. Or has this already been decided?
>
> I like the picture of "unicode circle of trust": everything inside the circle
> is trusted as unicode strings. Everything outside
I'm trying to run all the django tests under Python 2.3.5 (on OS X
10.4.8), and there are lots of failures (see below).
My settings file for the test is just:
DEBUG = True
DATABASE_ENGINE = 'mysql' # 'postgresql', 'mysql', 'sqlite3'
or 'ado_mssql'.
DATABASE_NAME = 'test'
The decimal module is part of Python from 2.4 onward, so it uses the
Python license.
On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 11:22 -0600, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On 1/28/07 8:18 AM, Andrew Durdin wrote:
> > * The 'decimal' module from 2.4 is included under django.utils, to
> > ensure Python 2.3 compatibility
On 1/28/07 8:18 AM, Andrew Durdin wrote:
> * The 'decimal' module from 2.4 is included under django.utils, to
> ensure Python 2.3 compatibility
In order for this to be accepted, we need to know:
* What is the license for the decimal module, and is said license compatible
with the BSD license
> The real question, then, is what will it take to get Django unicode
> uh, "safe" (not sure if that's the best term) before 1.0. I realise
> that this looks like it's going to be fairly major to sort out, but if
> we don't then we're going to have all sorts of irritating little bugs
> like th
I've added an updated patch for #2365 "models.FloatField should be
renamed"[1], against revision 4439 of the trunk.
Summary of this patch:
* The 'decimal' module from 2.4 is included under django.utils, to
ensure Python 2.3 compatibility
* db.FloatField handle only floats, and db.DecimalFiel
Michael Radziej wrote:
> Hey, I now finally understand why you need #952 as soon as you switch to
> a different charset. I understand your point, but I'd rather offer a
> solution than postponing this for such a long time.
+1
#952 is good to include now since it plays nice with byte string model
Hi,
just for clarification, is that 'charset' parameter you can pass to
build the MySQLdb connection only used within MySQLdb to decode/encode
unicode strings?
Michael
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro
On 28-Jan-07, at 3:25 PM, Sandro Dentella wrote:
>> not moderated - and no bug in googlegroups either. There must be some
>> obstruction between your mailserver and google.
>
> I had similar problems myself with django-users. Messages appearing
> up to 36-40
> hours later and messages never ar
Hi,
Ivan Sagalaev schrieb:
> Michael Radziej wrote:
>> I'm not sure about what the last sentence means--are you suggesting to
>> put #3370 (the mysql part) into "Needs design decision"?
>
> ## 3370
>
> I'm -1 on setting MySQL connection to 'utf8' in #3370. It *will* make
> sense when we will h
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 08:19:33AM +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
>
>
> On 26-Jan-07, at 12:19 PM, medhat wrote:
>
> > So many times I send messages to the group, but my message does not
> > appear at all, or it might appear a day or two after I actually send
> > it, which of course makes it a
Ok, thanks for that Ivan,
Michael - ignore what I said before :-).
The real question, then, is what will it take to get Django unicode
uh, "safe" (not sure if that's the best term) before 1.0. I realise
that this looks like it's going to be fairly major to sort out, but if
we don't then we're
Michael Radziej wrote:
> I'm not sure about what the last sentence means--are you suggesting to
> put #3370 (the mysql part) into "Needs design decision"?
## 3370
I'm -1 on setting MySQL connection to 'utf8' in #3370. It *will* make
sense when we will have newforms ready and models containing u
ak wrote:
> Bjorn, if you read my first messages and specially my patch #3370, you
> find that I made a suggestion that if the guys want to move to unicode
> they better drop all native encodings support and so does my patch.
With all due respect, you seem to not understand this. 'Unicode' does
Hi Simon,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> +1
>
> I was just coming to the same conclusion - #952 looks good to go, and
> #3370 could be split into the __repr__ and mysql issues. __repr__ and
> #952 are easy to solve. The rest of it needs the cores to come to a
> decision about this.
I'm not sure about
+1
I was just coming to the same conclusion - #952 looks good to go, and
#3370 could be split into the __repr__ and mysql issues. __repr__ and
#952 are easy to solve. The rest of it needs the cores to come to a
decision about this.
--Simon
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~---
17 matches
Mail list logo
