Ticket #122: modeldiscuss.txt

File modeldiscuss.txt, 31.9 KB (added by hugo <gb@…>, 19 years ago)

IRC discussion about the model syntax

Line 
1 * Now talking on #django
2 * Topic for #django is: http://www.djangoproject.com/ || Django is a high-level Python Web framework that encourages rapid development and clean, pragmatic design.|| Logs: http://loglibrary.com/show_page/latest/179
3 * Topic for #django set by JZ_ at Sat Jul 16 12:30:01 2005
4 hugo- hi
5 mmarshall hi hugo-
6 * adrian_h is back.
7 adrian_h back
8 mmarshall Ok everyone, we can start talking again ;)
9 rmunn adrian_h: You said you're split on #122. What are your main objections?
10 * ljoramo has quit ()
11 * adrian_h gathers thoughts
12 rmunn Take your time. :-)
13 adrian_h I don't like the fact that ForeignKeys are name-less attributes of the class (yes, I was the one who suggested that behavior in the first place)
14 rmunn That would be a little surprising for newbies, yeah.
15 adrian_h Before we open-sourced Django, the field name was required. Foreign keys used to look like this:
16 adrian_h meta.IntegerField('field_name', 'verbose name', rel=meta.ManyToOne(Poll))
17 adrian_h So I shortened that to "ForeignKey(Poll)" in preparation for open-sourcing
18 * Netminder likes the current state of fields FWIW.
19 adrian_h But the one thing that was lost in that was that now you have to "guess" what the field names are, for use in meta.admin.fields
20 adrian_h I talked about this with MikeLambert last night
21 rmunn I personally would have little objection to making ForeignKeys require a name again...
22 hugo- me too
23 rmunn It's orthogonal to the question of the SQLObject-like syntax, IMHO.
24 rmunn Actually, requiring ForeignKeys (and ManyToManyFields) to have a name would get rid of one of the more "magic" parts of the #122 patch.
25 adrian_h As I see it, the issues are related, because one solution can solve both problems
26 adrian_h Yeah, exactly
27 rmunn They're related, but independent: it would be quite feasible to implement one, or the other, or both, or neither.
28 rmunn One of those four is probably optimum, we just need to figure out which.
29 rmunn Another possibility: in mmarshall's email to the dev list, he mentioned writing a wrapper class for the new behavior.
30 rmunn I would suggest making the new behavior the default, but keeping a wrapper class ("meta.OldModel" perhaps) around to give the old "fields tuple" behavior.
31 adrian_h Yeah, that's possible...But there should be One Real Way of doing it
32 adrian_h Yes, we've discussed meta.OldModel (with exactly that name)
33 rmunn The documentation would mention the "fieldname = CharField()" syntax only, and the BackwardsIncompatibilities page would say "As a transition measure, use meta.OldModel until you've converted all your models".
34 mmarshall rmunn: That was what I tried to do at first, but there were some problems.
35 rmunn mmarshall: What problems did you run into?
36 adrian_h IIRC, the problem lies in the fact that django/models/__init__.py can't be duplicated
37 adrian_h i.e., we can't have multiple copies of it
38 mmarshall For one thing, the changes were not local meta.Model; they also required switching the first two arguments to the Field classes.
39 rmunn Ah yes, so that verbose_name could become the first positional arg.
40 mmarshall So I tried duplicating meta itself, resulting in a new can of worms.
41 mmarshall rmunn: Yes.
42 mmarshall At first, I had a hack to get around this, but it was messy, and prone to confuse people.
43 rmunn So if this is going to happen, it sounds like the simplest way is to just bite the bullet and say, "OK folks, revision ### is going to break all your models. Here's how to convert to the new syntax."
44 adrian_h Yeah...And, realistically, having to change models to use the "fieldname = class" syntax is only slightly more work than changing models to use "meta.OldModel"
45 rmunn How would you feel about the "fieldname = class" syntax if the decision was made that ForeignKeys must always be given a name?
46 mmarshall Yeah, it's really not that big of a deal. Although, after converting all of the models in the tests and the django internals, as well as my own, I got a little sick of it.
47 * threeve has quit ()
48 rmunn Any other major objections?
49 rmunn That was to adrian_h, of course, not mmarshall. :-)
50 rmunn mmarshall: But it's a one-time price.
51 adrian_h My only other major objection is having to ask everybody to change model syntax
52 adrian_h Which isn't a huge problem, being that we haven't guaranteed backwards-compatibility
53 rmunn Well, there's no getting around that one.
54 rmunn It'll mostly depend on whether people want the new syntax or not.
55 adrian_h And yesterday's session update was backwards-incompatible, and people didn't complain too loudly...
56 Netminder adrian_h: very few people had gotten to sessions yet
57 rmunn If there are loud boos and very few cheers, you could always revert the patch...
58 mmarshall Yeah, but that wasn't as big of deal to change.
59 rmunn I, for one, would be cheering loudly. :-)
60 Netminder changing the model syntax is pretty big.
61 adrian_h Netminder: Yes, but the session change broke admin installations, because the admin now depends on sessions
62 rmunn Yeah, it is, which is why I'm trying to start discussion on the dev list.
63 adrian_h People haven't really spoken up about the model syntax, other than rmunn and mmarshall
64 mmarshall I have had a number of people mention it to me.
65 rmunn manuzhai was saying earlier in here that he planned to write a post to the dev list.
66 * Tybstar (n=tgerla@cpe-069-134-162-085.nc.res.rr.com) has joined #django
67 Netminder adrian_h: I'd probably be mildly against it, as I don't feel a "big gain" in the new syntax vs. the current and it'd be a good bit of work and relearnin'
68 adrian_h How does manuzhai feel about it?
69 rmunn loglibrary's not working, so I'll just copy and paste:
70 rmunn manuzhai: "will send a me too to the #122 thread once I get an email from it"
71 adrian_h Netminder: all right
72 * Tybstar returns
73 adrian_h Tybstar: How do you feel about the proposed model syntax change to use "fieldname = FieldClass"?
74 mmarshall When I came in earlier, he mentioned that #122 was 'shot down', and frowned.
75 rmunn manuzhai: "I for one like 'your' syntax better" (to mmarshall)
76 Netminder adrian_h: I heard some rumbles on the ticket about issues with the db layer. Is that a show stopper or just something to get around?
77 * liquidx (n=liquidx@87.240.134.143) has joined #django
78 hugo- I don't think that it really is much change in the syntax. Actually that's the reason why I am a bit split on #122, too - I don't see much gain for the work
79 Tybstar adrian_h: i haven't really followed the discussion, unfortunately. i liked it on first glance, but i've really gotten attached to the current syntax.
80 Netminder yes, that's my thought too hugo-
81 hugo- ok, sure, the new syntax would be nicer, but is it really that big a problem to use a list of fields instead of a list of attribute assignments?
82 Tybstar it's not a huge difference either way...
83 rmunn It's not a huge gain once you've gotten used to the fields = (...) syntax. I see it more as a big gain for newbies.
84 hugo- is it really?
85 Netminder It's just... different.
86 adrian_h Netminder: There shouldn't be any issues with the DB layer with regard to the possible syntax change -- the syntax is abstracted
87 Netminder adrian_h: roger that.
88 hugo- if I think about what questions arise here in the channel, I don't think that _that_ part of Django really produces that much questions
89 rmunn Ah good, some real discussion at last. :-)
90 adrian_h Great point, hugo-
91 hugo- there are other things like the settings file an dstuff like that :-)
92 Tybstar the model fields syntax isn't bad. the admin = syntax can be pretty hairy.
93 Tybstar i've seen lots of people have trouble wtih the (foo) != (foo,) thing in the admin = code
94 rmunn I've seen that too.
95 hugo- Tybstar: yeah, that's one thing I allways want to hit Guido over the head because of ;-)
96 Netminder the (foo,) syntax becomes second nature after a messup or two
97 rmunn I'd suggest a general rule-of-thumb: if something is supposed to be a list or tuple, and you get a string, automatically convert it.
98 adrian_h The one real problem I have with the model syntax is that it's not immediately apparent what the field name is for a ForeignKey and ManyToManyField, so people don't know what to use in admin.fields
99 Tybstar adrian_h: indeed
100 Tybstar takes some guesswork
101 hugo- Tybstar: especially since python will happily iterate over chars in a string if it expects a list :-)
102 Tybstar yes
103 adrian_h We can fix that with the model validator, with a message that says "That's an invalid field name. Here are the valid field names for this model", but that's still one step too much
104 Tybstar the pitfalls of a dynamically typed langage. :)
105 hugo- adrian_h: I would applaud a move that ForeignKey and friends need a obligatory first parameter that is the field name like other field types
106 rmunn That's what ticket #244 was about.
107 hugo- adrian_h: especially since that would make writing models for existing databases much more obvious
108 hugo- adrian_h: especially since the "name=" option for ForeignKey isn't (or at least wasn't) documented in the model reference :-)
109 rmunn Wow, discussion moved on while I was searching for that ticket.
110 rmunn I meant that http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/244 was about being nicer to newbies.
111 hugo- rmunn: you need to configure --with-threads ;-)
112 rmunn Heh. I wish IRC had that sometimes... :-)
113 adrian_h :)
114 adrian_h hugo-: Would you applaud the move if it were in "fieldname = FieldClass" syntax?
115 Netminder irc --with-productivity would be nice
116 mmarshall Netminder: LOL
117 rmunn Netminder: :-D
118 rmunn Okay, let me see who seems to like or dislike the "fieldname = FieldClass" syntax.
119 rmunn I like it.
120 rmunn mmarhsall likes it.
121 rmunn adrian_h is split but leaning against (?)
122 rmunn Netminder isn't too enthusiastic.
123 hugo- adrian_h: I wouldn't mind if it was, as I don't have much models to change - but I still wouldn't see the reason to switch that part of the syntax. But I wouldn't actively object.
124 rmunn Tybstar liked it at first but is pretty indifferent.
125 rmunn hugo- doesn't much care.
126 mmarshall garthk likes it, manuzhai likes it
127 hugo- rmunn: doesn't much care with added a bit of puzzlement, please ;-)
128 rmunn Anyone object to how I've described them?
129 adrian_h I'm positively *for* requiring a name for ForeignKey and ManyToManyField, to make that explicit -- which is a related issue
130 hugo- adrian_h: that one I am quite positive about, too
131 rmunn adrian_h: I'm +1 on requiring a name as well.
132 Netminder rmunn: that's about right. +1 on the requirement
133 mmarshall +1 on requiring a name here
134 Tybstar +1
135 adrian_h Wow, no opposition to the name requirement -- very cool
136 rfc1149 count me in :) +1 on requiring a name
137 Tybstar sounds unaniniminninnious
138 mmarshall I normally specify a name anyway :P
139 adrian_h rfc1149: What do you think of the "fieldname=FieldClass" syntax?
140 adrian_h As an aside, can anybody on Windows confirm this bug? http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/349
141 rfc1149 i quite like the fieldname=FieldClass idea, but am a bit concerned that it will bite later. using fields= leaves a lot of namespace for later use.
142 adrian_h rfc1149: The idea is that other (non-field) data would go in an inner class called "Meta"
143 rfc1149 btw, i also would like to interpret "foo" as ("foo",) in settings where it makes sense
144 rfc1149 oh, that would be very nice!
145 rfc1149 (the inner Meta class, that is)
146 rmunn What I see is support for fieldname=FieldClass ranging from mild to enthusiastic, but I don't see any opposition stronger than mild.
147 rmunn Is there anyone who would positively scream if that was implemented?
148 rmunn Remember, it would be a backwards-incompatible change to the model syntax, so it would involve work (albeit a one-time effort) on your part to change your models.
149 rfc1149 i do not yet have significant amounts of existing code, but i would not like it if an unthinking svn update would break all my code
150 * Netminder remains mildly against it.
151 rfc1149 but i guess that is unavoidable :)
152 adrian_h Here's an example of the new syntax, so people have something to look at: http://django.pastebin.com/339441
153 Netminder I'd kinda grumble a bit while rewriting my todo app :)
154 rfc1149 and it's still not yet released :)
155 * Boffbowsh (i=Boffbows@host-85-236-105-19.multiplaydsl.co.uk) has joined #django
156 rfc1149 the field=FieldClass syntax really looks clean and natural
157 rmunn Boffbowsh: Have you looked at http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/122 at all?
158 rfc1149 and friendly to newbies.. i'm liking it more and more.
159 hugo- I'd prefer it if the inner class wasn't tacked on by magic but instead just be added via a __meta__ = something attribute
160 Netminder yeah, it's kinda nice. My only objection would be the one time fee that we'd have to pay, but I think it would be worth it in the long run.
161 Boffbowsh yeah, i've taken a look, if thats'the fieldname = fielddef thing
162 Boffbowsh i agree it would be nice
163 rmunn I'm trying to get a feel for whether people would really like that syntax, really hate it, or be indifferent.
164 Netminder yeah, I'm not keen on the magic
165 hugo- field names with __ in front and back could be defined as "internal use" - that would match with python thinking
166 Boffbowsh but not at the expense of ease of maintenance of django, imo
167 Netminder +1 on hugo's line of thought
168 Boffbowsh yar
169 rfc1149 Boffbowsh: that's a good point
170 rmunn hugo-: Interesting idea.
171 rfc1149 but i have not really heard adrian_h complain about it
172 adrian_h If we use fieldname=fielddef, the maintenance will be about the same as it is now
173 rmunn Perhaps __meta__ = dict(admin=Admin(), foo=Bar(), ...)
174 rfc1149 see :)
175 Boffbowsh i don't mind having a slightly odd syntax (which isn't really that odd at all, there's just a slightly nicer way) if it means that the rest of the project is stable and easy to add new stuff to
176 adrian_h But the last patch to #122 (which allows model attributes without names) would be a headache to maintain
177 Boffbowsh not read it through thoruoghly as i was at work when it first cropped up
178 rfc1149 i personally prefer Meta: ... above __meta__ = dict( ... )
179 adrian_h Using a class for Meta would be better, because you wouldn't have to use commas between attributes
180 Netminder hmm yeah
181 adrian_h Models themselves used to be dictionaries, a long time ago
182 Boffbowsh are there any benefits other than it looking nicer?
183 hugo- adrian_h: yeah, but the problem is with the way how you find out in your Poll class that there is an inner class Meta
184 mmarshall adrian_h: how would it be hard to maintain?
185 rmunn There seems to be pretty much unanimous consensus to require a name for ForeignKey and ManyToManyFields, so the headache-to-maintain patch can probably go away.
186 Netminder if it looks prettier but is painful to maintain, that's no good
187 hugo- there is no obvious connection between those two besides the scope - the internally needed assignments are done by magic
188 adrian_h mmarshall: I was referring to the magic no-name-for-ForeignKeys thing, but we've agreed to scrap that.
189 * rfc1149 goes to bed but looks forward to reading the rest of the discussion later
190 * Dagur (n=dagur@dsl-196-5.hive.is) has joined #django
191 rmunn rfc1149: Don't log out -- loglibrary is down.
192 hugo- and more specificially: there is no prior art in Python libraries for such magic that connects stuff implicitely just because of the scope they are in
193 adrian_h hugo-: You're talking about the internal "class Meta", right?
194 hugo- adrian_h: yep
195 hugo- I agree that it's cleaner syntax, though. <sigh> not an easy choice
196 hugo- the hacker in me would go the inner-class-way, the maintainer might shy away from it :-)
197 Netminder I'm still on the fence, but think maintainability is a key thing to think about
198 Netminder the syntax is quite nice though :)
199 adrian_h The maintenance for the inner class is simple -- internally (inside the metaclass call), it's just interpreted as another attribute on the object
200 rmunn I'm looking at things more from a usability perspective than a maintainability perspective, so that colors my perception.
201 rmunn Most of the tickets I file tend to be useability issues, if you've noticed.
202 adrian_h It's even probably a bit cleaner than the current internals
203 adrian_h rmunn: Yes, and they're much appreciated :)
204 Dagur Could someone tell me what this error means:
205 Dagur ContentTypeDoesNotExist: ContentType does not exist for {'package__label__exact': 'jenga', 'python_module_name__exact': 'jengacats'}
206 Dagur I get it when I try to submit stuff in the admin panel
207 rmunn Dagur: Have you changed your model recently?
208 Dagur yeah
209 hugo- adrian_h: the nice thing about the current stuff is: it's all python data. The new stuff is more python code objects. It's easy to programmatically generate python data if there is much repetitive stuff in it - but it's much harder (although not impossible thanks to pythons structure) to dynamically construct code objets
210 adrian_h Dagur: run "django-admin.py sqlall jenga" and execute the "INSERT INTO content_types ... jenga" line in your database.
211 rmunn Did you update the database after changing the model?
212 Dagur it's a model I created for an existing database
213 Dagur I didn't try that
214 Dagur will do
215 rmunn Dagur: Then you'll need to run sqlall, like adrian_h said.
216 rmunn But you'll also need to add all the auth_* and core_* tables.
217 hugo- adrian_h: and since I am in a line of business where there are often very large repetitive strikes of code and field definitions, I am much in favor of easy generating things programmatically
218 rmunn So that the INSERT INTO statements have somewhere to put the data. :-)
219 adrian_h Dagur: After doing "django-admin.py init", just do "django-admin.py sqlinitialdata jenga"
220 hugo- adrian_h: so in that aspect the maintainer in me shys away from solutions that leave the data-path and go the code path, even though the hacker in me prefers to hack on the latter stuff
221 hugo- usually the maintainer in me kicks the butt of the hacker in me ...
222 Dagur ok i'm confused now
223 rmunn hugo-: I *think*, though I'm not sure, that mmarshall's patch contructs a "fields" tuple internally.
224 rmunn Dagur: Listen to adran_h, not me. He knows what he's talking about.
225 Dagur hehe ok
226 * rheinbot has quit (Remote closed the connection)
227 * Tybstar needs a viewsvn for his project
228 adrian_h Dagur: Run the command "django-admin.py init" if you haven't already done that. That creates Django's internal database tables.
229 Netminder Tybstar: see the one that slashzero put django_ajax on, it's free to all
230 * Tybstar ponders writing a django-based viewsvn
231 adrian_h Dagur: After you've done that, run "django-admin.py sqlinitialdata jenga" and execute that SQL in your database.
232 adrian_h Dagur: That's it.
233 hugo- Tybstar: use trac
234 * rheinbot (n=supybot@maxwell.servers.ljworld.com) has joined #django
235 rmunn hugo-: Trac's internal Subversion viewer annoys me a little.
236 Tybstar hugo-: looks kinda heavyweight
237 rmunn It doesn't let me see what the root of the repository is.
238 rmunn I have to guess what to put after "svn checkout".
239 hugo- Tybstar: it isn't - I use it for most of my repositories nowadays, it's easy to set up and run
240 hugo- rmunn: hey, there is a wiki in it, just add a description of the checkout path to the wiki :-)
241 * Notify: jacobkm is offline (kornbluth.freenode.net).
242 Dagur woo! it worked
243 Dagur thanks
244 adrian_h Dagur: No problem! Thanks for using Django
245 Netminder Dagur: drive through :)
246 Dagur ^_^
247 * Tybstar can't make viewsvn work
248 Dagur I have another error for you guys :P
249 adrian_h Dagur: Go ahead
250 Dagur TypeError: got unexpected keyword argument 'id__iexactjengausers'
251 rmunn hugo-: Not every project that uses Trac seems to do that, though. That's my main gripe. It's a pretty small one, as gripes go.
252 Dagur the problem is that the id fields are called ID (capitalized)
253 adrian_h Dagur: Where did that error happen?
254 Dagur i was submitting in the admin panel
255 * GvaderTH (i=grzegorz@mokotow.com) has left #django
256 adrian_h Dagur: Can you paste the full traceback to django.pastebin.com?
257 Dagur http://django.pastebin.com/339455
258 adrian_h Thanks...I'm looking now
259 Dagur it's the id of a foreignkey table
260 Dagur not the table I'm updating
261 * wilsonian has quit ()
262 Dagur oops
263 Dagur id__iexactjengausers <-- the jengausers part is something I added
264 Dagur it's supposed to say id__iexact
265 adrian_h OK, I was wondering about that :)
266 Dagur sorry, I was trying to figure out the table name
267 adrian_h No problem
268 mmarshall hugo-: My patch simply itenerates over all of the attributes. If the attribute holds an instance of Field, it assigns the name (or rel_name, for relationship fields) from the attribute name, and adds it to a 'fields' list. This list is then used just the same as the fields tuple is currently.
269 adrian_h mmarshall: Ideally it would just loop over all the attributes except the one (if given) named "Meta"
270 rmunn Dagur: Is that "iexact" a typo that's supposed to be "exact", or did you really mean "iexact"?
271 mmarshall adrian_h: Actually, that's what it does.
272 * GvaderTH (n=gregtech@mokotow.com) has joined #django
273 adrian_h mmarshall: Ah, cool
274 adrian_h rmunn: That iexact is within Django...I'm fixing now.
275 hugo- adrian_h: and so I can't name a field Meta? yuck.
276 mmarshall Also, if it comes accross an attribute that is neither a Field nor a function, it raises a helpful error.
277 Dagur rmunn: it's the django code that does that
278 Dagur I was just submitting a form
279 mmarshall hugo-: Originally I supported doing that, by optionally placing all fields in a subclass named 'Fields', but Adrian didn't like that.
280 adrian_h Dagur: "svn update" your code, and let me know whether the problem is fixed.
281 Dagur ok
282 hugo- hmm. the more I think it through, the more I would tend to -1 on the new field syntax
283 mmarshall hugo-: actually, you can still do that, just by giving the 'name' argument.
284 Dagur worked!
285 adrian_h Dagur: Thanks for pointing out that bug!
286 adrian_h Dagur: Sorry, I should've credited you in the commit message
287 Dagur np, my pleasure!
288 adrian_h hugo-: One solution to that might be to require that "class Meta" is a subclass of "meta.Meta" or something like that
289 adrian_h "class Meta(meta.Meta)" -- hehe
290 rmunn Ew, that's a little overboard.
291 rmunn What about "class __meta__: ..."
292 adrian_h Is that possible?
293 hugo- sure
294 rmunn I don't see why not, it's just another name in the namespace.
295 adrian_h Very cool -- I just tried it
296 rmunn Let me check and make sure.
297 * hugo- has a class named __proxy__ in one of his source files :-)
298 rmunn Oh, nevermind then.
299 adrian_h Now that's much better, namespace-wise
300 rmunn Anyone who's using double-underscores at the start and end of their field names is being unpythonic, IMHO.
301 adrian_h But it introduces more double underscores :-/
302 Tybstar i'd suggest against __meta__
303 rmunn Yeah, that's the downside.
304 Tybstar it implies python builtin magic
305 hugo- rmunn: ugh - python uses loads of __xxxx__ stuff - is it unpythonic? :-)
306 Tybstar _Meta would be better
307 Netminder eew
308 rmunn hugo-: Fields are public things, __xxxx__ is for private stuff.
309 Netminder I'd take __meta__ before _Meta
310 hugo- and there are special provisions in python with regard to __xxxxx fields - they are hidden in some aspects
311 adrian_h hugo-: That's actually an advantage in this case
312 hugo- rmunn: the meta stuff _is_ private to the model, not public :-)
313 adrian_h What about "class DjangoMeta"?
314 hugo- but the reason why I dislike the new stuff is that it doesn't allow me to do things like fields = tuple([IntegerField(name, default=0) for name in list_of_fieldnames]) or something similar as easily
315 adrian_h That's much less likely to be used as a field name
316 Tybstar Netminder: i don't necessarily like _Meta better than __meta__, but i'm afraid of collidiing with python internals someday
317 rmunn What I meant was that "class __meta__" won't interfere with anyone's DB field name, since you should be using double-underscores for DB fields (which are more "public" attributes).
318 adrian_h hugo-: Interesting point, but, realistically, why would you want to do that, other than laziness? Models don't change often enough for there to be a need for them to be dynamic like that.
319 hugo- sure, if I know about the inner workings I can hack around it - but I can't just take the public visible interface of the model and apply python code there
320 hugo- adrian_h: laziness is my second name ;-)
321 adrian_h hehe
322 hugo- adrian_h: and for a more serious reason: I am working in legacy apps areas where you get _large_ structures of many very similar fields
323 hugo- if you have to write models with 100 or more fields and most of them are booleans or moneytypes or some choice of a handfull of possibilities, you crave for automatted solutions
324 Tybstar my cat just caught a blue jay.
325 adrian_h hugo-: "print ','.join(["IntegerField(%s, default=0)" % name for name in list_of_fieldnames])"
326 hugo- adrian_h: nooo - I hate generated code, programmatic solutions should just manipulate data
327 hugo- so to do the same with the new stuff I would write a loop that does a load of setattr(...)
328 hugo- it's not impossible, it's just not as easy and simple as with data structures
329 adrian_h hugo-: setattr wouldn't even work, because the metaclass runs when the class is *defined*
330 hugo- ah, yes, forgotten that one
331 adrian_h I must say, the new syntax is sexy
332 rmunn I suppose you could construct a dict and feed it to meta.Model.__new__(cls, bases, attrs). Ew.
333 rmunn I don't even know if that would work.
334 hugo- rmunn: yep, with metaclasses that would be a - rather ugly, I must say - option
335 adrian_h Or dynamically construct a class and dynamically set its parent class after it's been constructed?
336 hugo- sure, you can allways call the metaclass manually and construct the class instance by using the metaclass. It's a bit hacky and doesn't sound like really maintainable code, though ;-)
337 rmunn adrian_h: The metaclass magic happens before the class object is created, so I don't think that would work.
338 * manuzhai (n=manuzhai@i249181.upc-i.chello.nl) has joined #django
339 rmunn hugo-: You'd have to really deeply grok metaclasses to do that.
340 manuzhai soooo, is this were the #122 discussion is taking place?
341 adrian_h hugo-: What about a helper function for cases like yours? meta.create_model_from_dynamic_field_list(), except with a better name
342 rmunn hugo-: In other words, don't try it unless you're Dutch. :-)
343 adrian_h manuzhai: Yes, indeed
344 rmunn manuzhai: Yes.
345 hugo- rmunn: the main problem is that stuff like that would be code that only I would maintain because my coworkers _never_ will grok it ;-)
346 manuzhai rmunn: hey, don't fuck with the Dutch!!!
347 rmunn manuzhai: No no, it's a compliment.
348 manuzhai ok
349 hugo- rmunn: hey, I am living near the dutch border, so I am at least halfway competent ;-)
350 manuzhai so what are we actually talking about? :P
351 rmunn Only Guido van Rossum (and his brother) are smart enough to understand some of this stuff. :-)
352 adrian_h hugo-: What do you think of the helper function idea above?
353 hugo- adrian_h: if you find a better name ;-)
354 adrian_h create_model_from_dynamic_field_list_for_hugo()
355 adrian_h :)
356 hugo- lol
357 rmunn That's what, 30 characters long?
358 rmunn 40.
359 adrian_h At least this isn't PHP, where there's actually a performance penalty for using long variable names
360 Boffbowsh so glad to be moving over to python from php
361 Boffbowsh had to do a bit of php today, felt so... spaghetti like
362 adrian_h manuzhai: We're debating this syntax: http://django.pastebin.com/339441
363 Tybstar why the hell does viewcvs want TK??
364 * rmunn boggles. TK?
365 adrian_h The current question on the table is whether "class Meta" is a good name. It would conflict with a field named "Meta"
366 hugo- hmm. maybe if the mechanisms are made more transparent - define a set of functions to construct a model and then define the transformations that are used for transforming the class definition using _those_ functions into a model
367 manuzhai adrian_h: how is your current position?
368 adrian_h manuzhai: I'm getting more and more interested in the new syntax
369 hugo- that way the new syntax works nicely and somehugo with the need for programmatically creating models can use the documented "lower level"
370 adrian_h hugo-: That's a good solution
371 adrian_h A lower-level API for creating models
372 manuzhai adrian_h: that's good
373 hugo- actually that's the way Lispers often do this: build a set of base functions and define new syntax on top of it. They have macros, we have metaclasses for the syntax stuff
374 rmunn mmarshall's patch would need some serious rewriting, then.
375 Tybstar this is the suck.
376 rmunn Tybstar: Ouch. What distro?
377 Tybstar rmunn: it's a fedora machine
378 Tybstar i wish viewsvn worked
379 Netminder there's your problem :)
380 Tybstar heh
381 hugo- yikes. that's even worse than debians often-weird-dependencies :-)
382 * Tybstar wishes slashzero were here
383 Tybstar i just can't quite get viewsvn working
384 BleSS why i get this error? AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'status_code'
385 * rmunn *heart*s Synaptic
386 adrian_h BleSS: Your view has to return an HttpResponse object
387 * Notify: jacobkm is online (kornbluth.freenode.net).
388 * jacobkm (n=jacob@74.57.cm.sunflower.com) has joined #django
389 Boffbowsh BleSS: your get_object or whatever returned no object
390 Boffbowsh hence the Nojne
391 Boffbowsh *None
392 adrian_h That's a good case for a better error message.
393 Boffbowsh ahh, ok
394 rmunn adrian_h: Special-case check to see if None was returned from the view?
395 adrian_h rmunn: Yes
396 mmarshall rmunn: My patch is very simple; even stupidly simple now that the no-name-for-ForeignKeys thing is no longer needed.
397 hugo- since None is the implicit value for functions that are missing the return alltogether, I think that special case check would be usefull
398 Boffbowsh nn all
399 * proteusguy (n=proteusg@dsl027-163-201.atl1.dsl.speakeasy.net) has joined #django
400 * Boffbowsh has quit ()
401 * Dagur (n=dagur@dsl-196-5.hive.is) has left #django
402 * cmlenz has quit ()
403 BleSS adrian_h, whatever view has th reuturn an HttpResponse object? (my view simply add data to data base)
404 manuzhai BleSS: you should redirect then
405 adrian_h BleSS: Yes, every view has to return an HttpResponse object, so your users actually get a page. If you want to redirect, use HttpResponseRedirect('/path/to/new/page')
406 hugo- ok, so if the new syntax will be a combination of a documented model-creation API plus a compact class-based syntax on top of it, it get's a +1 from me
407 BleSS thanks
408 adrian_h hugo-: Yay
409 hugo- that should satisfy both the hacker and the maintainer in me ;-)
410 * jvoorhis (n=user@cpe-24-93-226-82.neo.res.rr.com) has joined #django
411 jvoorhis adrian_h: hi
412 adrian_h Hi jvoorhis
413 jvoorhis good work on the tutorial
414 * ljoramo (n=ljoramo@69-25-223-154.acsol.net) has joined #django
415 adrian_h jvoorhis: Thanks -- is everything going smoothly for you?
416 jvoorhis yes, except for python gotchas
417 adrian_h ah
418 jvoorhis a tuple is like a constant array, i guess
419 Netminder the sooner we make the change the better IMHO
420 adrian_h Netminder: Yes
421 adrian_h jacobkm: Hello
422 manuzhai adrian_h: could you or jacobkm look at my patch for #289?
423 jacobkm Howdy, adrian
424 jacobkm Looks like the logging bot has been broken for a few days :(
425 adrian_h Yeah :-(
426 rmunn Who set up the loglibrary logging in the first place?
427 jacobkm I did
428 rmunn So you're the one who can fix it (if it can be fixed).
429 jacobkm Yup
430 jacobkm I'm trying to figure out what's wrong right now.
431 rmunn I've got to go soon, but I'll save a copy of this IRC discussion in case anyone wants to look at what was said about #122.
432 Netminder I think loglibrary is having issues
433 Netminder I don't think there's anything we can do
434 jacobkm Hunh
435 rmunn Actually, most of it has already scrolled off the top of my scrollback buffer.
436 jvoorhis adrian_h: one thing i did not like was that the form on the details template has to be aware that it lives at polls/
437 jacobkm I was afraid of that.
438 rmunn Did anyone else manage to save the discussion from earlier?
439 manuzhai does anyone else think the CherryPy page on the wiki is pointless?
440 adrian_h manuzhai: Yeah, I just saw that and am tempted to delete it
441 hugo- rmunn: I can put the log from the discussion as a comment on #122 if you want
442 manuzhai I am, too
443 adrian_h rmunn: I've got the discussion
444 manuzhai please do so
445 manuzhai it seems like FUD
446 hugo- my scrollback buffer is big enough
447 rmunn Yes, please do.
448 jacobkm CherryPy page: gone
449 manuzhai hugo-: an attachment to #122 might be better
450 mrproper What is a closure & how does one use a closure in Python? (I have an idea of closure from Javascript and event listeners)
Back to Top