On 8/23/06, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> How To Be Sexy, Rule 1: The word "manipulator" has really got to go.
>
Thinger = "Manipulator" or "Form" # The thing that holds the fields
Bah, I try and try, but I can't figure out how to seperate the
manipulation process from the
Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Aug 25, 2006, at 7:04 AM, DavidA wrote:
> > One comment on ValidationErrors: When I've done these types of things
> > in the past, I've typically returned two levels of validations
> > messages: warnings and errors. An error indicates that the attempted
> > save will
Personally, I like the form exception thing, but if enough people
think it's un-Pythonic or too expensive to use an exception for it,
then I can get behind that.
I like a lot of the stuff in Joseph's proposal, especially the method
of handling read-only fields (that would solve a lot of common
On 8/25/06, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The whole raising a Form thing is just a shocking idea.
>
> Which, right there, is what I'm opposed to it. Often there's a reason
> why things are usually done one way, and I don't want to break from
> the standard way of using
On Aug 24, 2006, at 2:21 PM, Brantley Harris wrote:
> > The whole raising a Form thing is just a shocking idea.
+1
At first, I really digged this raising a Form, but then I realized
that it is just returning a value, but too cleverly...
1. It feels like a goto is happening (execution jumping in
[Pulling together quotes from a few messages]
On Aug 24, 2006, at 2:21 PM, Brantley Harris wrote:
> My problem with Joseph's proposal is that I believe it to be too tied
> to the concept of the Model. Idealy, the Form/Manipulator should not
> really have anything to do with a Model, except
On 8/24/06, Bill de hÓra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I gather this proposal means validation will be highly optimised for web
> forms and available only on POST? I understand that is the mainline use
> case, but I have a preference something that wasn't baked into HTML 'cos
> I'll have to hack
James Bennett wrote:
> On 8/23/06, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Thoughts/comments/suggestions on Joseph's plan below, and on Brant's
>> plan in Trac?
>
> I think Brant's rocking the sexiness; the concept of validation
> behaving as a try/except block feels nice to me. And
On 8/24/06, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Al-rightly then... thoughts?
>
+1 ValidationErrors with an s, as I've said before: the more errors
returned at once, the better.
My problem with Joseph's proposal is that I believe it to be too tied
to the concept of the Model.
James Bennett wrote:
> On 8/24/06, JP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I like James Bennetts's example a lot, but I'd like it more if the form
> > class were ModelForm, descending from a more general Form class that
> > would look much like the base Manipulator class of today.
>
> I think you're
On 8/24/06, Ivan Sagalaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Brantley Harris wrote:
> > Maybe it's a philosophic question, but I see it best
> > defined in the "model" space because then it provides a modular
> > process for views to leverage.
>
> Manipulators can (and do) serve not only as model
On 8/24/06, JP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I like James Bennetts's example a lot, but I'd like it more if the form
> class were ModelForm, descending from a more general Form class that
> would look much like the base Manipulator class of today.
I think you're confusing me with someone else...
Dan Watson wrote:
> Actually that was one of my favorite pieces. I think it captures what's
> going on in a very intuitive way: try to create/update, if that fails,
> redisplay with errors.
I think the piece on which I agree with JP is that a _form_ serving as
an exception is counter-intuitive.
> I'm afraid that I find the idea in Brantley Harris's proposal of
> raising a Form as an exception as a form of flow control really
> counter-intuitive. Apologies and it's just my opinion of course, but it
> has a sort of "too clever" feel to me. Also, exceptions are very
> expensive, and I
I agree and disgree. :)
I like James Bennetts's example a lot, but I'd like it more if the form
class were ModelForm, descending from a more general Form class that
would look much like the base Manipulator class of today.
I'm afraid that I find the idea in Brantley Harris's proposal of
raising
Brantley Harris wrote:
> Maybe it's a philosophic question, but I see it best
> defined in the "model" space because then it provides a modular
> process for views to leverage.
Manipulators can (and do) serve not only as model savers. They can
authorize, register, send mail etc. Manipulator is
On 8/24/06, Brantley Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, watch for the difference between a ValidationError being raised
> and a Form exception being raised. In the ValidationError case, it
> must be saved and returned with the other validation errors in the
> given step (1. conversion; 2.
On 8/24/06, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 8/23/06, Brantley Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The problem is that to make it usefull to the user (read: api-user /
> > developer), you have to put the model save in a try / except block so
> > that if there is a validation
On 8/23/06, Brantley Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem is that to make it usefull to the user (read: api-user /
> developer), you have to put the model save in a try / except block so
> that if there is a validation error, it can raise the form.
> Otherwise, the user will have to
On 8/23/06, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. I'm not sure I like the idea of manipulators having a 'process'
> method which does everything; it would feel more natural to just try
> 'manipulator.save()', have that save if all is well, and catch any
> validation errors.
The problem
Finally! I've been waiting :)
On 8/23/06, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> How To Be Sexy, Rule 1: The word "manipulator" has really got to go.
>
> Thoughts/comments/suggestions on Joseph's plan below, and on Brant's
> plan in Trac?
>
I know you want to get rid of the concept of
On 8/23/06, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thoughts/comments/suggestions on Joseph's plan below, and on Brant's
> plan in Trac?
I think Brant's rocking the sexiness; the concept of validation
behaving as a try/except block feels nice to me. And bidding good-bye
to 'if errors',
Resurrecting an old thread...
Let's make this happen!
Joseph (in the e-mail below) has spelled out a pretty decent plan for
the new manipulator scheme. I see that we've got another proposal in
Trac by Brant Harris -- http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/2586.
Let's get something decided and
On 3/8/06, Christopher Lenz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Am 08.03.2006 um 16:20 schrieb Joseph Kocherhans:
>
> So how is a Form connected to a Model?
This is the coolest part I think. Unfortunately I buried it with a
bunch of other stuff. The AddForm and ChangeForm would be created
Am 08.03.2006 um 16:20 schrieb Joseph Kocherhans:
> The short version of this is really, forms and manipulators merge and
> get more powerful, models grow validation. This is an attempt to
> clarify and add to Adrian's previous proposal. I hope it takes care of
> people's concerns. Here are some
The short version of this is really, forms and manipulators merge and
get more powerful, models grow validation. This is an attempt to
clarify and add to Adrian's previous proposal. I hope it takes care of
people's concerns. Here are some details:
Forms and FormFields are intended to be used for
26 matches
Mail list logo
