Re: Will asgi become a PEP like wsgi is ?

:26 PM, Etienne Robillard <tkad...@yandex.com> wrote: ASGI is for building platform-oriented web applications in Django. Could you elaborate on this ? The only mention of Django I found in the spec linked by the OT is "Django Channels ships with a no-op consumer attached by default; w

Re: Will asgi become a PEP like wsgi is ?

t;. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Etienne Robillard tkad...@yandex.com http://www.isotopesoftware.ca/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscr

Re: Extending Django models with Schevo

nse you're looking for or if this is on-topic for the Django developers mailing list, which pertains to the development of Django itself. django-users seems more appropriate unless you're proposing some feature for Django. On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 3:57:42 PM UTC-5, Etienne Robill

Extending Django models with Schevo

to Schevo databases using JSON fixtures would also be a great addition. Any ideas if Django 1.10 can be used for this? Kind regards, Etienne -- Etienne Robillard tkad...@yandex.com http://www.isotopesoftware.ca/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Grou

Re: Getting a traceback out of connection.queries

On 02/01/2012 10:30 AM, Daniel Moisset wrote: On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 8:34 PM, josharian wrote: Hi all, We're using connection.queries to log all sql executed during development. I find myself wishing that in addition to 'sql' and 'time', there was a 'traceback' entry, so

Re: End-user defined fields, how would you approach it?

On 01/30/2012 08:20 AM, Bernardo Pires wrote: Someone has PMS. you mean like Post-menstrual syndrome ? Are you kidding.. 8-) i'm just concerned by whatever I could touch would be immediately backfired as OT.. E -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: End-user defined fields, how would you approach it?

On 01/29/2012 02:46 PM, John Hensley wrote: On Jan 29, 2012, at 1:52 PM, Etienne Robillard wrote: On 01/29/2012 01:40 PM, Aymeric Augustin wrote: Hello Etienne, The three messages you posted in this thread aren't appropriate on this mailing list, both in terms of contents and tone. Please

Re: End-user defined fields, how would you approach it?

On 01/29/2012 09:28 PM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: On 30/01/2012, at 9:51 AM, Etienne Robillard wrote: i still think stackoverflow.com is retarded. Ie it attracts stupid peoples with stupid questions towards stupid solutions. :-) As for your opinions, I respect them as always

Re: End-user defined fields, how would you approach it?

On 01/29/2012 07:51 PM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: On 30/01/2012, at 6:05 AM, Etienne Robillard wrote: On 01/29/2012 04:27 PM, Łukasz Rekucki wrote: You're not discriminated - everyone is treated the same way here and judged only by their actions. By disobeying the rules of this list

Re: End-user defined fields, how would you approach it?

using Django. On 29 January 2012 21:44, Etienne Robillard<animelo...@gmail.com> wrote: On 01/29/2012 02:46 PM, John Hensley wrote: On Jan 29, 2012, at 1:52 PM, Etienne Robillard wrote: On 01/29/2012 01:40 PM, Aymeric Augustin wrote: Hello Etienne, The three messages you posted in this

Re: End-user defined fields, how would you approach it?

On 01/29/2012 12:55 PM, Ivan Kharlamov wrote: On 01/29/2012 09:39 PM, Etienne Robillard wrote: On 01/29/2012 12:31 PM, Ivan Kharlamov wrote: On 01/29/2012 09:16 PM, Etienne Robillard wrote: For other options checkout this guide:http://stackoverflow.com/a/7934577/497056 Best regards, Ivan

Re: End-user defined fields, how would you approach it?

On 01/29/2012 12:55 PM, Ivan Kharlamov wrote: On 01/29/2012 09:39 PM, Etienne Robillard wrote: On 01/29/2012 12:31 PM, Ivan Kharlamov wrote: On 01/29/2012 09:16 PM, Etienne Robillard wrote: For other options checkout this guide:http://stackoverflow.com/a/7934577/497056 Best regards, Ivan

Re: End-user defined fields, how would you approach it?

On 01/29/2012 02:46 PM, John Hensley wrote: On Jan 29, 2012, at 1:52 PM, Etienne Robillard wrote: On 01/29/2012 01:40 PM, Aymeric Augustin wrote: Hello Etienne, The three messages you posted in this thread aren't appropriate on this mailing list, both in terms of contents and tone. Please

Re: End-user defined fields, how would you approach it?

On 01/29/2012 01:40 PM, Aymeric Augustin wrote: Hello Etienne, The three messages you posted in this thread aren't appropriate on this mailing list, both in terms of contents and tone. Please stay on topic, respect other members of the community, and if you don't have anything constructive

Re: End-user defined fields, how would you approach it?

On 01/29/2012 12:31 PM, Ivan Kharlamov wrote: On 01/29/2012 09:16 PM, Etienne Robillard wrote: For other options checkout this guide:http://stackoverflow.com/a/7934577/497056 Best regards, Ivan Kharlamov Probably a really mediocre reference assuming its on stackoverflow.com already

Re: End-user defined fields, how would you approach it?

For other options checkout this guide:http://stackoverflow.com/a/7934577/497056 Best regards, Ivan Kharlamov Probably a really mediocre reference assuming its on stackoverflow.com already... :-) Cheers E -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: End-user defined fields, how would you approach it?

Hi, 2. The second approach would be to have a database table for each of the users (probably no more than a 1000). I've read django has something in the lines of inspectdb, which actually checks which fields are there and produces the model for you. This could be useful but I think maybe I

Re: RFC: Query Methods

On 01/12/2012 07:24 AM, Zachary Voase wrote: I strongly feel that switching around managers like that would be an example of overengineering. The user story which drove this RFC was based on an issue which has been encountered by lots of developers, but typically solved in a single way.

Re: SOPA bill question

James, This SOPA bill thing probably concerns more open source communities than you could think of, including Django development, and discussing about it should be a good thing, not a bad one, as far I understand the problems it creates. Further I disagree this is a bad list for discussing

Re: SOPA bill question

On 12/26/2011 11:12 PM, Justin Holmes wrote: Yep, there's no doubt that having these kinds of discussions on the dev list (which already struggles at times to keep a good signal / noise ratio) is not the way. However, it was clear at djangocon (and is also clear in the various django IRC

Re: SOPA bill question

On 12/26/2011 07:46 PM, Jeremy Dunck wrote: On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Etienne Robillard<animelo...@gmail.com> wrote: What thus you Django developers all think of this proposed law and how could this may affect open source communities such as Django and Python to develop nove

SOPA bill question

Hi, I'm curious and at the same time a little worried by the upcoming "SOPA" bill, which would imposes in US new laws for blocking down websites and user-generated content on the basis of copyright violation. What thus you Django developers all think of this proposed law and how could this

Re: Bug with contenttypes when models are removed - what approach to take?

regards, Diederik Hi, I'm not sure this is not entirely related to django-polymorphic, yet a traceback would have been helpful in understanding your code. :) cheers, E -- Etienne Robillard Lead Developer and Consultant Green Tea Hackers Club Email: animelo...@gmail.com Website:http

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On Nov 30, 2007 2:27 AM, Max Battcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 30, 2007 2:18 AM, jj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > move 0.96 to 1.0 status. This might sound somewhat artificial, but > > would clearly indicate that 0.96 is a version one can already trust. > > Isn't the Web site

Re: GSoC 2007: Reusable Django applications

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Jannis, Thanks for your time writing this post. :) I like this idea of having reusable apps for Django all in the same place. Here's some suggestions. > My initial GSoC application [1] was divided in: > > 1) Create code infrastructure to

Re: A question about manage.py validation

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Not sure what to expect unless you give some more data, input, or whatever which should make senses regarding your issue with FileField. However, in my case i've managed to make FileField working reasonably well using the newforms-admin branch. I

Re: Accessing request.FILES in chunks

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi there, Not sure what you're trying to achieve with FileWrapper, however here's how I'd do it with Django prior to revision 5818: ... if request.method == 'POST': # Fetch some new data.. new_data = request.POST.copy()

Re: how to deserialize foreign keys in postgresql to python ?

... Regards, Etienne On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:28:06 +0800 "Russell Keith-Magee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 7/17/07, Russell Keith-Magee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 7/16/07, Etienne Robillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >

how to desreialize foreign keys in postgresql to python ?

Hi, Im trying to deserialize an csv row into a django object instance but it fails to process foreign keys correctly. As far as I understand this issue, there's no such "field.attname" in the table which is necessary for making the FK relationship: Jul 16 09:44:44 fluke postgres[51608]:

Re: python.py deserialization and handling foreign key fields ?

enne On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:11:13 +0800 "Russell Keith-Magee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 7/13/07, Etienne Robillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > How should exceptions caught by FieldDoesNotExist be handled > > when trying to deserialize a

python.py deserialization and handling foreign key fields ?

Hi all, How should exceptions caught by FieldDoesNotExist be handled when trying to deserialize a object mapping to native python data types? For example, I have a csv row which I would like to deserialize into a model instance, but it breaks when trying to convert any foreign key field,

Re: Changeset [5231] -- do_clean_*() is awkward naming

I dont understand that changes. For me thats just odd, and a royal pain to update lots of sites just for renaming clean_data to cleaned_data. I really think thats odd and a better rationale would take in consideration that already working and defined functions should try to keep at least some