Re: ModelForm + MultiValueField = form.save() problem

Hi, Plz post usage questions to django-users. This group is about the development of Django itself. Cheers, Florian -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com.

Re: Document low level cache API a bit more

Ok! On Nov 25, 8:28 pm, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Yo-Yo Ma wrote: > > I was reading about the low level cache API, and I noticed that you > > could cache None (implied by the recommendation not to do so). It made >

Re: Document low level cache API a bit more

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Yo-Yo Ma wrote: > I was reading about the low level cache API, and I noticed that you > could cache None (implied by the recommendation not to do so). It made > me wonder if I could cache other Python-specific objects, like >

Document low level cache API a bit more

I was reading about the low level cache API, and I noticed that you could cache None (implied by the recommendation not to do so). It made me wonder if I could cache other Python-specific objects, like dictionaries, lists, ORM Model instances, etc. Are there differences between a normal model

Re: RFC #9964 - fix "missing" db commits by forcing managed transactions to close

Hi Russell, Christophe, Thomas and list, Thanks for your kind words and comments. I'm very encouraged by them. On Thursday 25 November 2010, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > > 1) Why introduce a full class wrapper with a customizable on_use() > handler when there is only one meaningful course of

Re: Deprecating ADMIN_MEDIA_PREFIX

In the future, how would we specify a different path for admin media? There is the case of the "same origin policy" that makes me jump through hoops to make sure that any javascript and/or iframe based goodies, such as tinymce are served from the same domain. On Nov 21, 9:23 pm, Andrew Godwin

Re: Documentation style guide hint for section headers?

Agreed with Alex. I brought this up on IRC a month or so ago, and the (small) consensus was that it'd be great to have the ":real markup:" generate TOC entries the way we want it to, but that doing so involves hacking Sphinx (or at best writing a plugin for it) and nobody was ready to jump into

Re: Documentation style guide hint for section headers?

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Adam V. wrote: > The docs seem a bit inconsistent on the use of raw lines for headings > that describe classes/methods/attributes. > > The stated preference is to use a directive before the heading to make > it easier to link. Is there also a

Documentation style guide hint for section headers?

The docs seem a bit inconsistent on the use of raw lines for headings that describe classes/methods/attributes. The stated preference is to use a directive before the heading to make it easier to link. Is there also a preference on whether these headings should be raw quoted or normal text?

Re: RFC #9964 - fix "missing" db commits by forcing managed transactions to close

On Nov 25, 2010, at 7:46 AM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > We need to declare that the current behavior to be a bug. We can > break backwards compatibility to correct behavior that is clearly > wrong. I haven't fully thought through the consequences here, but I > think the combination of the

ModelForm + MultiValueField = form.save() problem

Hi! I have a modelForm for some model. Example Article: class Article(models.Model) title = models.CharField(max_length=255) price = models.IntegerField() currency = models.IntegerField() class ArticleForm(forms.ModelForm) price = MyPriceFied(choices = CURRENCY_CHOICES)

Re: RFC #9964 - fix "missing" db commits by forcing managed transactions to close

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 6:03 AM, Shai Berger wrote: > Hi list, > > #9964 is about managed transactions not being committed under transaction > middleware (or transaction.commit_on_success decorator) after the database was > modified via raw SQL. The root cause of that is that,

Re: RFC #9964 - fix "missing" db commits by forcing managed transactions to close

Hi Shai and list, I tested your patch with my applications. All my unittests pass. Shai Berger wrote: > Hi list, > > #9964 is about managed transactions not being committed under transaction > middleware (or transaction.commit_on_success decorator) after the database > was > modified via raw