Re: django-mssql present and future

Hi Michael, On 27 May 2016, at 20:44, Michael Manfre wrote: > Regarding feature parity, the initial commit of this non-existent-yet library > will have as many supported features as django-mssql on Django 1.9 and 1.10. > :P Fair enough :-) > The pre-release code will need

Re: django-mssql present and future

Aymeric wrote: > However I’m wary of deciding that a non-existent-yet library is the > endorsed solution for using SQL Server from Django. It may be best to wait > until it has reached feature parity with django-mssql and received some > amount of real-world testing to move it there. > Regarding

Re: Support of model_object.delete(cascade=True)

Hi Sven, I agree with Tim about the fact such an option could be dangerous as you can't control the extent of the cascade. We removed the depth parameter of `QuerySet.select_related()` method for similar reasons and in this case you only ended up with a slow query not possibly purged data.

Re: django-mssql present and future

Hi Michael, > To me the most important reason is, I want to start from scratch to help document what is involved with creating a database backend. I agree, such documentation is definitely lacking and even if it wont be commonly used it's invaluable for the rare developers needing it. Are you

Re: New CharField attribute to handle CharField(null=True, blank=True, unique=True) in model forms

Hi, On Thursday 19 May 2016 06:01:30 Jon Dufresne wrote: > > Occasionally I'll need to define a CharField on a model that is unique but > also allow blank values. At the database level, this is easily handled by > storing NULL for the blank values. (Storing the empty string multiple times > will

Support of model_object.delete(cascade=True)

Hi everybody, That's my first proposal for Django, so I hope it's in the right shape. :) Even though we have on_delete=PROTECTED on several models fields for a very good reason, there are circumstances where we want to circumvent this restriction for a very good reason, too. And we are 110%

Re: django-mssql present and future

I'm definitely a fan of doing things under the /django banner. I think so long as we make it clear that this is in development then it shouldn't matter about feature parity - especially as django-mssql won't have a version supporting 1.9 or 1.10 anyway. On 27 May 2016 at 08:24, Aymeric Augustin <

Re: django-mssql present and future

Hi Michael, Thanks for this initiative! I like the idea of hosting this new project in the Django organization. I think there’s a lot of value in having a good SQL Server backend for Django, implemented according to Microsoft’s recommendations, and little reason to encourage competition in