Oh, I guess I should have mentioned this on the list and not just in the bug:
I would like core developers to take a look before 1.1, because, as the
solution I propose involves adding a new settings knob (and possible
behavior), it is borderline between bugfix and feature. Way closer to bugfix
On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 17:59 -0700, Vitaly wrote:
> I am using django version 1.0 and ran into shallow copy limitation of
> QuerySet.values() where it returns ints for ForeignKey columns. Here
> is my take on deep copy implementation.
Instead of leaping right into a proposed solution, can you expl
I am using django version 1.0 and ran into shallow copy limitation of
QuerySet.values() where it returns ints for ForeignKey columns. Here
is my take on deep copy implementation.
def deep_values(o, *args, **kargs):
""" Converts instance of django.db.models object into dictionary.
If anyone else read this and was as confused as I was at first, make
sure to note that this is different than WTForms[1], which is an
alternate form library that took several of its cues from Django's
newforms.
[1] http://wtforms.simplecodes.com/
Thanks,
Eric Florenzano
--~--~-~--~~-
On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 17:06 -0700, Jari Pennanen wrote:
[...]
> I wish people has some thoughts about this...
Well, one thought is that your timing is a little off. We're in the
final phases of getting the 1.1-beta release out and then it's heads
down, fixing bugs for 1.1-final.
In a couple of m
I really hate to be a pessimist, but if the functionality already
exists for that much generation, why bother integrating it with the
main django package?
On Mar 18, 8:06 pm, Jari Pennanen wrote:
> WTForm is simple implementation built on top of existing (new)forms to
> help create fieldsets, an
WTForm is simple implementation built on top of existing (new)forms to
help create fieldsets, and by judging django snippets alone one can
see it's a huge hole in Django. Everyone has wondered why the heck
doing those fieldsets is such a pain when in admin it is super easy,
and it turns out the Dj
Hi list,
Responding to Jacob's message of yesterday, I worked a little more on this
issue, and brought my patch to a working state, tests included. This revealed
some issues with my approach, which I've documented on the patch.
I would like to see this resolved for 1.1, either way.
On Monday
I've started working on this and I was wondering if this would be a
feature that would be nice to add to django.admin. If not, say -1, if
you like the idea please keep readin and comment.
I've added a new option to the InlineAdmin class called 'collapse'. If
this is set to 'True' for the stacked
On Wednesday 18 March 2009 15:59:10 Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Luke Plant
wrote:
> > I propose adding the two [CSRF] middleware (view and response) to
> > the MIDDLEWARE settings [...]
>
> I'm a somewhat reluctant +0 on this -- the content re-writing that
> the C
On Mar 16, 4:34 pm, mariuz wrote:
> any progress with firebird driver ? I see an old post from 2008 if i
> search the archives for firebird+database
> Maybe I should try to create the tutorial db and add the patches
>
> I want to show some demo to the python meetup in boston if it will
> work :
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Luke Plant wrote:
> I propose adding the two [CSRF] middleware (view and response) to the
> MIDDLEWARE
> settings [...]
I'm a somewhat reluctant +0 on this -- the content re-writing that the
CSRF middleware does has always rubbed me the wrong way. For one,
it'll
I have not been able to implement all of the CSRF proposals we made a
while back in time for the beta (in particular, replacing the current
CsrfResponseMiddleware with a template tag).
However, significant improvements have been made, and it is much more
useful by default. I propose adding th
13 matches
Mail list logo
