Re: Model translation and meta options

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Adam Johnson wrote: > Sorry for the terrible pun here, but I'd like to suggest the > meta-feature... allowing 3rd party apps to add their own options to Meta > classes. If there was a sensible API for this (or if Django just copied all >

Re: Model translation and meta options

Adam, here's a ticket about allowing custom Meta attributes: https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/5793. I guess it would be better to have a separate thread for that discussion. On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 6:22:08 PM UTC-5, Adam Johnson wrote: > > Sorry for the terrible pun here, but I'd

Re: Model translation and meta options

Sorry for the terrible pun here, but I'd like to suggest the meta-feature... allowing 3rd party apps to add their own options to Meta classes. If there was a sensible API for this (or if Django just copied all attributes defined in Meta onto _meta blindly), Django wouldn't have to add the

Re: Model translation and meta options

W dniu wtorek, 14 lutego 2017 16:19:48 UTC+1 użytkownik jp...@yourlabs.org napisał: > > However, there's a third alternative to changing Meta that may be worth > suggesting: adding a new Field attribute ie. translatable=True, which could > be default for CharField and TextField perhaps. It

Re: Model translation and meta options

Le 14. 02. 17 à 16:31, Patryk Zawadzki a écrit : I think the proposed fields are mostly useful for translation utilities that modify your schema on the fly. I consider these to be the least clean solutions as they mean none of the translated fields can be marked as required. For other solutions

Re: Model translation and meta options

Le 14. 02. 17 à 16:16, j...@yourlabs.org a écrit : (...) However, there's a third alternative to changing Meta that may be worth suggesting: adding a new Field attribute ie. translatable=True, which could be default for CharField and TextField perhaps. It might even turn to be an advantage that

Re: Model translation and meta options

I think the proposed fields are mostly useful for translation utilities that modify your schema on the fly. I consider these to be the least clean solutions as they mean none of the translated fields can be marked as required. For other solutions (depending on separate tables and registration)

Re: Model translation and meta options

Django itself includes excellent i18n features for everything, except for model data: but this can be improved, even in a multi-milestone fashion starting with Claude's feature idea which is why I support it and I will restrain myself from talking about internal implementation details which

Re: Model translation and meta options

Hi Raphael, Le 14. 02. 17 à 14:53, Raphael Michel a écrit : Hi Claude, I spent some time looking at the implementations out there and in one of my projects I'm running a custom one, that uses yet another approach (that I plan to release as a library some day). It is not only that we are not

Re: Model translation and meta options

Hi Claude, I spent some time looking at the implementations out there and in one of my projects I'm running a custom one, that uses yet another approach (that I plan to release as a library some day). It is not only that we are not yet ready to bless one of them, I have a feeling that we never

Model translation and meta options

Dear developers, I'd like to suggest an addition to the Django Model definitions to ease the implementation of translatable model fields. There are currently several third-party applications for model translation, and even if I think we are not ready yet to bless one of them to be included in