I just copy-pasted the app objects requirement as listed and discussed
in http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/InstalledAppsRevision . I
personally have no use case for it.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
On Sep 17, 11:13 am, mrts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just copy-pasted the app objects requirement as listed and discussed
> inhttp://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/InstalledAppsRevision. I
> personally have no use case for it.
Doh, that should have been *multiple* app objects above.
--~--~--
On Sep 17, 1:03 am, "John D'Agostino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I started working on a patch 6 months ago to implement App objects,
> but unfortunately never got to finish it because at the time I was
> swamped at work.
> Because of the all the work which has happened on trunk the code is
> p
Thats a good list of benefits. The only possible pitfall I see is
making things more complicated rather than simpler.
I'm not sure that versioning would be a good idea within a Django
project. While version and dependency tracking is a good thing, once
you do it to very fine grained level it beco
Am 17.09.2008 um 01:37 schrieb Malcolm Tredinnick:
> As was pointed out the first time you brought this up, keep in mind
> that
> there still need to be ways to manually control the lexing phase. Not
> every template tag has the same requirements there.
>
> Also, since the Variable class is pa
> Would @register.tag(token_stream=True) work instead, or am I missing
> something?
Yes, that would work.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send emai
I take it that most are aware of:
http://lucumr.pocoo.org/cogitations/2008/09/16/why-jinja-is-not-django-and-why-django-should-have-a-look-at-it/
It seems like a very well thought out and thorough write up.
Ben
2008/9/17 Johannes Dollinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Would @register.tag(token_st
I have added a ticket for this, and a fix that I think would help a
lot of people migrating.
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/9120
On Sep 14, 11:28 am, HenrikV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I use a number of apps from google code, like a lot of other people I
> suspect. The big problem with t
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 4:25 AM, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm writing this mostly as an explanation of what I plan to do; if
> there aren't any well-founded objections, I'll make the necessary
> changes and commit them before we create the 1.0.x branch.
We've talked about this i
Dear devels,
I use the Http404 exception a *lot*, mainly because I call a lot
of functions from within my views (I was raised in the Lisp tradition
of refactoring EVERYTHING into separate functions) and it's nice
sometimes to override the caller and just return a set response to the
client. Bu
Ticket 3011 proposes how to allow overriding the User model. I am
working on an improved patch that,
* Supports ForeignKey("auth.User") and
ForeignKey(django.admin.auth.models.User)
* By default has the same database schema as before the patch
* Allows an overridden UserAdmin if the User model is
Wouldn't it be easier to use process_exception instead of process_view ?
--
Collin Grady
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-develo
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 12:11 PM, zvoase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> I'll post soon. For the meantime, take a look at http://dpaste.com/hold/78671/
That won't do what you want, since the "raise" on line 13 will prevent
line 14 from executing.
I agree, you seem to want process_exception.
--
On Sep 16, 2:16 am, mrts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * generally we should strive for a hassle-free experience so that
> `easy_install django-foo` gives you an expected entry point (`from
> django.apps import foo`) and works-out-of-the-box feel
Just a slightly twisted thought, what if a site's
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 2:49 AM, mengel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2:16 am, mrts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> * generally we should strive for a hassle-free experience so that
>> `easy_install django-foo` gives you an expected entry point (`from
>> django.apps import foo`) and works-
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 14:42 +0100, Ben Ford wrote:
> I take it that most are aware of:
>
> http://lucumr.pocoo.org/cogitations/2008/09/16/why-jinja-is-not-django-and-why-django-should-have-a-look-at-it/
>
> It seems like a very well thought out and thorough write up.
Um .. welll. :-(
Parts of
Yeah, that's it, process_exception is *definitely* what I need :)
But as for the idea, how do you feel about it?
By the way, I've just posted a better version of it (sorry for my
temporary lack of brain) here: http://dpaste.com/hold/78773/
On Sep 17, 9:26 pm, "Jeremy Dunck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
Sorry, here: http://dpaste.com/hold/78774/
On Sep 18, 1:29 am, zvoase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah, that's it, process_exception is *definitely* what I need :)
> But as for the idea, how do you feel about it?
> By the way, I've just posted a better version of it (sorry for my
> temporary lac
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 6:30 PM, zvoase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sorry, here: http://dpaste.com/hold/78774/
>
> On Sep 18, 1:29 am, zvoase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yeah, that's it, process_exception is *definitely* what I need :)
>> But as for the idea, how do you feel about it?
>> By t
That's true. That doesn't mean, however, that the ResponseException
class should be removed; it's useful in that you don't need to go like
this:
exc = Exception()
exc.response = HttpResponse('content', ...)
raise exc
You can just do it all in one line. It could be put in
'django.core.e
I think the app object thing is a really good idea, but I have to say
one thing; why not see if some middle ground can be met between the
Django cheeseshop idea (going on in another thread in this group) and
this.
Maybe an app_info.py file in a Django app directory could give some
info on that app
I don't know if anyone's noticed, but the templating language seems
(at least from a usage standpoint) to be a lot like a Lisp
interpreter.
I know that sounds completely weird and random, but it's true. It's
like a very small subset of Scheme or something (the small subset
thing is necessary becau
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 16:29 -0700, zvoase wrote:
> Yeah, that's it, process_exception is *definitely* what I need :)
> But as for the idea, how do you feel about it?
It's trying to use exceptions for regular flow control instead of very
exceptional cases. That's neither particularly Lisp-ish nor
If I follow you are saying that it is lispy in that flow control
statements and functions are handled just the same way(meaning you can
define your own statements if you like)?
On Sep 17, 8:02 pm, zvoase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know if anyone's noticed, but the templating language se
I guess so, but also from the overall *feel* of using it; I find
myself switching into Lisp mode when I use it. That probably makes no
sense, but it's just this feeling I had. I guess it feels as though
there's some big eval/apply machine behind it all. And the fact that
templates are compiled to
Thanks a lot, I understand what you're saying completely. I was
thinking more along the lines of errors which can occur which wouldn't
necessarily warrant 404s, but that's probably only a niche - mainly
for things like REST and places where a client really does care what
status code is returned. A
On Sep 18, 2:56 am, zvoase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the app object thing is a really good idea, but I have to say
> one thing; why not see if some middle ground can be met between the
> Django cheeseshop idea (going on in another thread in this group) and
> this.
That's the point. B
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 22:19 -0700, mrts wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 18, 2:56 am, zvoase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think the app object thing is a really good idea, but I have to say
> > one thing; why not see if some middle ground can be met between the
> > Django cheeseshop idea (going on in an
28 matches
Mail list logo
