Ticket #122: modeldiscuss_cleanedup.txt

           * Now talking on #django
           * 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
           * Topic for #django set by JZ_ at Sat Jul 16 12:30:01 2005
       hugo- hi
   mmarshall hi hugo-
           * adrian_h is back.
    adrian_h back
   mmarshall Ok everyone, we can start talking again ;)
       rmunn adrian_h: You said you're split on #122. What are your main objections?
           * ljoramo has quit ()
           * adrian_h gathers thoughts
       rmunn Take your time. :-)
    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)
       rmunn That would be a little surprising for newbies, yeah.
    adrian_h Before we open-sourced Django, the field name was required. Foreign keys used to look like this:
    adrian_h meta.IntegerField('field_name', 'verbose name', rel=meta.ManyToOne(Poll))
    adrian_h So I shortened that to "ForeignKey(Poll)" in preparation for open-sourcing
           * Netminder likes the current state of fields FWIW.
    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
    adrian_h I talked about this with MikeLambert last night
       rmunn I personally would have little objection to making ForeignKeys require a name again...
       hugo- me too
       rmunn It's orthogonal to the question of the SQLObject-like syntax, IMHO.
       rmunn Actually, requiring ForeignKeys (and ManyToManyFields) to have a name would get rid of one of the more "magic" parts of the #122 patch.
    adrian_h As I see it, the issues are related, because one solution can solve both problems
    adrian_h Yeah, exactly
       rmunn They're related, but independent: it would be quite feasible to implement one, or the other, or both, or neither.
       rmunn One of those four is probably optimum, we just need to figure out which.
       rmunn Another possibility: in mmarshall's email to the dev list, he mentioned writing a wrapper class for the new behavior.
       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.
    adrian_h Yeah, that's possible...But there should be One Real Way of doing it
    adrian_h Yes, we've discussed meta.OldModel (with exactly that name)
       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".
   mmarshall rmunn: That was what I tried to do at first, but there were some problems.
       rmunn mmarshall: What problems did you run into?
    adrian_h IIRC, the problem lies in the fact that django/models/__init__.py can't be duplicated
    adrian_h i.e., we can't have multiple copies of it
   mmarshall For one thing, the changes were not local meta.Model; they also required switching the first two arguments to the Field classes.
       rmunn Ah yes, so that verbose_name could become the first positional arg.
   mmarshall So I tried duplicating meta itself, resulting in a new can of worms.
   mmarshall rmunn: Yes.
   mmarshall At first, I had a hack to get around this, but it was messy, and prone to confuse people.
       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."
    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"
       rmunn How would you feel about the "fieldname = class" syntax if the decision was made that ForeignKeys must always be given a name?
   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.
           * threeve has quit ()
       rmunn Any other major objections?
       rmunn That was to adrian_h, of course, not mmarshall. :-)
       rmunn mmarshall: But it's a one-time price.
    adrian_h My only other major objection is having to ask everybody to change model syntax
    adrian_h Which isn't a huge problem, being that we haven't guaranteed backwards-compatibility
       rmunn Well, there's no getting around that one.
       rmunn It'll mostly depend on whether people want the new syntax or not.
    adrian_h And yesterday's session update was backwards-incompatible, and people didn't complain too loudly...
   Netminder adrian_h: very few people had gotten to sessions yet
       rmunn If there are loud boos and very few cheers, you could always revert the patch...
   mmarshall Yeah, but that wasn't as big of deal to change.
       rmunn I, for one, would be cheering loudly. :-)
   Netminder changing the model syntax is pretty big.
    adrian_h Netminder: Yes, but the session change broke admin installations, because the admin now depends on sessions
       rmunn Yeah, it is, which is why I'm trying to start discussion on the dev list.
    adrian_h People haven't really spoken up about the model syntax, other than rmunn and mmarshall
   mmarshall I have had a number of people mention it to me.
       rmunn manuzhai was saying earlier in here that he planned to write a post to the dev list.
           * Tybstar (n=tgerla@cpe-069-134-162-085.nc.res.rr.com) has joined #django
   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'
    adrian_h How does manuzhai feel about it?
       rmunn loglibrary's not working, so I'll just copy and paste:
       rmunn manuzhai: "will send a me too to the #122 thread once I get an email from it"
    adrian_h Netminder: all right
           * Tybstar returns
    adrian_h Tybstar: How do you feel about the proposed model syntax change to use "fieldname = FieldClass"?
   mmarshall When I came in earlier, he mentioned that #122 was 'shot down', and frowned.
       rmunn manuzhai: "I for one like 'your' syntax better" (to mmarshall)
   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?
           * liquidx (n=liquidx@87.240.134.143) has joined #django
       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
     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.
   Netminder yes, that's my thought too hugo-
       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?
     Tybstar it's not a huge difference either way...
       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.
       hugo- is  it really?
   Netminder It's just... different.
    adrian_h Netminder: There shouldn't be any issues with the DB layer with regard to the possible syntax change -- the syntax is abstracted
   Netminder adrian_h: roger that.
       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
       rmunn Ah good, some real discussion at last. :-)
    adrian_h Great point, hugo-
       hugo- there are other things like the settings file an dstuff like that :-)
     Tybstar the model fields syntax isn't bad. the admin = syntax can be pretty hairy.
     Tybstar i've seen lots of people have trouble wtih the (foo) != (foo,) thing in the admin = code
       rmunn I've seen that too.
       hugo- Tybstar: yeah, that's one thing I allways want to hit Guido over the head because of ;-)
   Netminder the (foo,) syntax becomes second nature after a messup or two
       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.
    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
     Tybstar adrian_h: indeed
     Tybstar takes some guesswork
       hugo- Tybstar: especially since python will happily iterate over chars in a string if it expects a list :-)
     Tybstar yes
    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
     Tybstar the pitfalls of a dynamically typed langage. :)
       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
       rmunn That's what ticket #244 was about.
       hugo- adrian_h: especially since that would make writing models for existing databases much more obvious
       hugo- adrian_h: especially since the "name=" option for ForeignKey isn't (or at least wasn't) documented in the model reference :-)
       rmunn Wow, discussion moved on while I was searching for that ticket.
       rmunn I meant that http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/244 was about being nicer to newbies.
       hugo- rmunn: you need to configure --with-threads ;-)
       rmunn Heh. I wish IRC had that sometimes... :-)
    adrian_h :)
    adrian_h hugo-: Would you applaud the move if it were in "fieldname = FieldClass" syntax?
   Netminder irc --with-productivity would be nice
   mmarshall Netminder: LOL
       rmunn Netminder: :-D
       rmunn Okay, let me see who seems to like or dislike the "fieldname = FieldClass" syntax.
       rmunn I like it.
       rmunn mmarhsall likes it.
       rmunn adrian_h is split but leaning against (?)
       rmunn Netminder isn't too enthusiastic.
       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.
       rmunn Tybstar liked it at first but is pretty indifferent.
       rmunn hugo- doesn't much care.
   mmarshall garthk likes it, manuzhai likes it
       hugo- rmunn: doesn't much care with added a bit of puzzlement, please ;-)
       rmunn Anyone object to how I've described them?
    adrian_h I'm positively *for* requiring a name for ForeignKey and ManyToManyField, to make that explicit -- which is a related issue
       hugo- adrian_h: that one I am quite positive about, too
       rmunn adrian_h: I'm +1 on requiring a name as well.
   Netminder rmunn: that's about right.  +1 on the requirement
   mmarshall +1 on requiring a name here
     Tybstar +1
    adrian_h Wow, no opposition to the name requirement -- very cool
     rfc1149 count me in :) +1 on requiring a name
     Tybstar sounds unaniniminninnious
   mmarshall I normally specify a name anyway :P
    adrian_h rfc1149: What do you think of the "fieldname=FieldClass" syntax?
    adrian_h As an aside, can anybody on Windows confirm this bug? http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/349
     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.
    adrian_h rfc1149: The idea is that other (non-field) data would go in an inner class called "Meta"
     rfc1149 btw, i also would like to interpret "foo" as ("foo",) in settings where it makes sense
     rfc1149 oh, that would be very nice!
     rfc1149 (the inner Meta class, that is)
       rmunn What I see is support for fieldname=FieldClass ranging from mild to enthusiastic, but I don't see any opposition stronger than mild.
       rmunn Is there anyone who would positively scream if that was implemented?
       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.
     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
           * Netminder remains mildly against it.
     rfc1149 but i guess that is unavoidable :)
    adrian_h Here's an example of the new syntax, so people have something to look at: http://django.pastebin.com/339441
   Netminder I'd kinda grumble a bit while rewriting my todo app :)
     rfc1149 and it's still not yet released :)
           * Boffbowsh (i=Boffbows@host-85-236-105-19.multiplaydsl.co.uk) has joined #django
     rfc1149 the field=FieldClass syntax really looks clean and natural
       rmunn Boffbowsh: Have you looked at http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/122 at all?
     rfc1149 and friendly to newbies.. i'm liking it more and more.
       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
   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.
   Boffbowsh yeah, i've taken a look, if thats'the fieldname = fielddef thing
   Boffbowsh i agree it would be nice
       rmunn I'm trying to get a feel for whether people would really like that syntax, really hate it, or be indifferent.
   Netminder yeah, I'm not keen on the magic
       hugo- field names with __ in front and back could be defined as "internal use" - that would match with python thinking
   Boffbowsh but not at the expense of ease of maintenance of django, imo
   Netminder +1 on hugo's line of thought
   Boffbowsh yar
     rfc1149 Boffbowsh:  that's a good point
       rmunn hugo-: Interesting idea.
     rfc1149 but i have not really heard adrian_h complain about it
    adrian_h If we use fieldname=fielddef, the maintenance will be about the same as it is now
       rmunn Perhaps __meta__ = dict(admin=Admin(), foo=Bar(), ...)
     rfc1149 see :)
   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
    adrian_h But the last patch to #122 (which allows model attributes without names) would be a headache to maintain
   Boffbowsh not read it through thoruoghly as i was at work when it first cropped up
     rfc1149 i personally prefer Meta: ... above __meta__ = dict( ... )
    adrian_h Using a class for Meta would be better, because you wouldn't have to use commas between attributes
   Netminder hmm yeah
    adrian_h Models themselves used to be dictionaries, a long time ago
   Boffbowsh are there any benefits other than it looking nicer?
       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
   mmarshall adrian_h: how would it be hard to maintain?
       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.
   Netminder if it looks prettier but is painful to maintain, that's no good
       hugo- there is no obvious connection between those two besides the scope - the internally needed assignments are done by magic
    adrian_h mmarshall: I was referring to the magic no-name-for-ForeignKeys thing, but we've agreed to scrap that.
           * rfc1149 goes to bed but looks forward to reading the rest of the discussion later
           * Dagur (n=dagur@dsl-196-5.hive.is) has joined #django
       rmunn rfc1149: Don't log out -- loglibrary is down.
       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
    adrian_h hugo-: You're talking about the internal "class Meta", right?
       hugo- adrian_h: yep
       hugo- I agree that it's cleaner syntax, though. <sigh> not an easy choice
       hugo- the hacker in me would go the inner-class-way, the maintainer might shy away from it :-)
   Netminder I'm still on the fence, but think maintainability is a key thing to think about
   Netminder the syntax is quite nice though :)
    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
       rmunn I'm looking at things more from a usability perspective than a maintainability perspective, so that colors my perception.
       rmunn Most of the tickets I file tend to be useability issues, if you've noticed.
    adrian_h It's even probably a bit cleaner than the current internals
    adrian_h rmunn: Yes, and they're much appreciated :)
       Dagur Could someone tell me what this error means:
       Dagur ContentTypeDoesNotExist: ContentType does not exist for {'package__label__exact': 'jenga', 'python_module_name__exact': 'jengacats'}
       Dagur I get it when I try to submit stuff in the admin panel
       rmunn Dagur: Have you changed your model recently?
       Dagur yeah
       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
    adrian_h Dagur: run "django-admin.py sqlall jenga" and execute the "INSERT INTO content_types ... jenga" line in your database.
       rmunn Did you update the database after changing the model?
       Dagur it's a model I created for an existing database
       Dagur I didn't try that
       Dagur will do
       rmunn Dagur: Then you'll need to run sqlall, like adrian_h said.
       rmunn But you'll also need to add all the auth_* and core_* tables.
       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
       rmunn So that the INSERT INTO statements have somewhere to put the data. :-)
    adrian_h Dagur: After doing "django-admin.py init", just do "django-admin.py sqlinitialdata jenga"
       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
       hugo- usually the maintainer in me kicks the butt of the hacker in me ...
       Dagur ok i'm confused now
       rmunn hugo-: I *think*, though I'm not sure, that mmarshall's patch contructs a "fields" tuple internally.
       rmunn Dagur: Listen to adran_h, not me. He knows what he's talking about.
       Dagur hehe ok
           * rheinbot has quit (Remote closed the connection)
           * Tybstar needs a viewsvn for his project
    adrian_h Dagur: Run the command "django-admin.py init" if you haven't already done that. That creates Django's internal database tables.
   Netminder Tybstar: see the one that slashzero put django_ajax on, it's free to all
           * Tybstar ponders writing a django-based viewsvn
    adrian_h Dagur: After you've done that, run "django-admin.py sqlinitialdata jenga" and execute that SQL in your database.
    adrian_h Dagur: That's it.
       hugo- Tybstar: use trac
           * rheinbot (n=supybot@maxwell.servers.ljworld.com) has joined #django
       rmunn hugo-: Trac's internal Subversion viewer annoys me a little.
     Tybstar hugo-: looks kinda heavyweight
       rmunn It doesn't let me see what the root of the repository is.
       rmunn I have to guess what to put after "svn checkout".
       hugo- Tybstar: it isn't - I use it for most of my repositories nowadays, it's easy to set up and run
       hugo- rmunn: hey, there is a wiki in it, just add a description of the checkout path to the wiki :-)
           * Notify: jacobkm is offline (kornbluth.freenode.net).
       Dagur woo! it worked
       Dagur thanks
    adrian_h Dagur: No problem! Thanks for using Django
   Netminder Dagur: drive through :)
       Dagur ^_^
           * Tybstar can't make viewsvn work
       Dagur I have another error for you guys :P
    adrian_h Dagur: Go ahead
       Dagur TypeError: got unexpected keyword argument 'id__iexactjengausers'
       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.
       Dagur the problem is that the id fields are called ID (capitalized)
    adrian_h Dagur: Where did that error happen?
       Dagur i was submitting in the admin panel
           * GvaderTH (i=grzegorz@mokotow.com) has left #django
    adrian_h Dagur: Can you paste the full traceback to django.pastebin.com?
       Dagur http://django.pastebin.com/339455
    adrian_h Thanks...I'm looking now
       Dagur it's the id of a foreignkey table
       Dagur not the table I'm updating
           * wilsonian has quit ()
       Dagur oops
       Dagur id__iexactjengausers   <-- the jengausers part is something I added
       Dagur it's supposed to say id__iexact
    adrian_h OK, I was wondering about that :)
       Dagur sorry, I was trying to figure out the table name
    adrian_h No problem
   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.
    adrian_h mmarshall: Ideally it would just loop over all the attributes except the one (if given) named "Meta"
       rmunn Dagur: Is that "iexact" a typo that's supposed to be "exact", or did you really mean "iexact"?
   mmarshall adrian_h: Actually, that's what it does.
           * GvaderTH (n=gregtech@mokotow.com) has joined #django
    adrian_h mmarshall: Ah, cool
    adrian_h rmunn: That iexact is within Django...I'm fixing now.
       hugo- adrian_h: and so I can't name a field Meta? yuck.
   mmarshall Also, if it comes accross an attribute that is neither a Field nor a function, it raises a helpful error.
       Dagur rmunn: it's the django code that does that
       Dagur I was just submitting a form
   mmarshall hugo-: Originally I supported doing that, by optionally placing all fields in a subclass named 'Fields', but Adrian didn't like that.
    adrian_h Dagur: "svn update" your code, and let me know whether the problem is fixed.
       Dagur ok
       hugo- hmm. the more I think it through, the more I would tend to -1 on the new field syntax
   mmarshall hugo-: actually, you can still do that, just by giving the 'name' argument.
       Dagur worked!
    adrian_h Dagur: Thanks for pointing out that bug!
    adrian_h Dagur: Sorry, I should've credited you in the commit message
       Dagur np, my pleasure!
    adrian_h hugo-: One solution to that might be to require that "class Meta" is a subclass of "meta.Meta" or something like that
    adrian_h "class Meta(meta.Meta)" -- hehe
       rmunn Ew, that's a little overboard.
       rmunn What about "class __meta__: ..."
    adrian_h Is that possible?
       hugo- sure
       rmunn I don't see why not, it's just another name in the namespace.
    adrian_h Very cool -- I just tried it
       rmunn Let me check and make sure.
           * hugo- has a class named __proxy__ in one of his source files :-)
       rmunn Oh, nevermind then.
    adrian_h Now that's much better, namespace-wise
       rmunn Anyone who's using double-underscores at the start and end of their field names is being unpythonic, IMHO.
    adrian_h But it introduces more double underscores :-/
     Tybstar i'd suggest against __meta__
       rmunn Yeah, that's the downside.
     Tybstar it implies python builtin magic
       hugo- rmunn: ugh - python uses loads of __xxxx__ stuff - is it unpythonic? :-)
     Tybstar _Meta would be better
   Netminder eew
       rmunn hugo-: Fields are public things, __xxxx__ is for private stuff.
   Netminder I'd take __meta__ before _Meta
       hugo- and there are special provisions in python with regard to __xxxxx fields - they are hidden in some aspects
    adrian_h hugo-: That's actually an advantage in this case
       hugo- rmunn: the meta stuff _is_ private to the model, not public :-)
    adrian_h What about "class DjangoMeta"?
       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
    adrian_h That's much less likely to be used as a field name
     Tybstar Netminder: i don't necessarily like _Meta better than __meta__, but i'm afraid of collidiing with python internals someday
       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).
    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.
       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
       hugo- adrian_h: laziness is my second name ;-)
    adrian_h hehe
       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
       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
     Tybstar my cat just caught a blue jay.
    adrian_h hugo-: "print ','.join(["IntegerField(%s, default=0)" % name for name in list_of_fieldnames])"
       hugo- adrian_h: nooo - I hate generated code, programmatic solutions should just manipulate data
       hugo- so to do the same with the new stuff I would write a loop that does a load of setattr(...)
       hugo- it's not impossible, it's just not as easy and simple as with data structures
    adrian_h hugo-: setattr wouldn't even work, because the metaclass runs when the class is *defined*
       hugo- ah, yes, forgotten that one
    adrian_h I must say, the new syntax is sexy
       rmunn I suppose you could construct a dict and feed it to meta.Model.__new__(cls, bases, attrs). Ew.
       rmunn I don't even know if that would work.
       hugo- rmunn: yep, with metaclasses that would be a - rather ugly, I must say - option
    adrian_h Or dynamically construct a class and dynamically set its parent class after it's been constructed?
       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 ;-)
       rmunn adrian_h: The metaclass magic happens before the class object is created, so I don't think that would work.
           * manuzhai (n=manuzhai@i249181.upc-i.chello.nl) has joined #django
       rmunn hugo-: You'd have to really deeply grok metaclasses to do that.
    manuzhai soooo, is this were the #122 discussion is taking place?
    adrian_h hugo-: What about a helper function for cases like yours? meta.create_model_from_dynamic_field_list(), except with a better name
       rmunn hugo-: In other words, don't try it unless you're Dutch. :-)
    adrian_h manuzhai: Yes, indeed
       rmunn manuzhai: Yes.
       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 ;-)
    manuzhai rmunn: hey, don't fuck with the Dutch!!!
       rmunn manuzhai: No no, it's a compliment.
    manuzhai ok
       hugo- rmunn: hey, I am living near the dutch border, so I am at least halfway competent ;-)
    manuzhai so what are we actually talking about? :P
       rmunn Only Guido van Rossum (and his brother) are smart enough to understand some of this stuff. :-)
    adrian_h hugo-: What do you think of the helper function idea above?
       hugo- adrian_h: if you find a better name ;-)
    adrian_h create_model_from_dynamic_field_list_for_hugo()
    adrian_h :)
       hugo- lol
       rmunn That's what, 30 characters long?
       rmunn 40.
    adrian_h At least this isn't PHP, where there's actually a performance penalty for using long variable names
   Boffbowsh so glad to be moving over to python from php
   Boffbowsh had to do a bit of php today, felt so... spaghetti like
    adrian_h manuzhai: We're debating this syntax: http://django.pastebin.com/339441
     Tybstar why the hell does viewcvs want TK??
           * rmunn boggles. TK?
    adrian_h The current question on the table is whether "class Meta" is a good name. It would conflict with a field named "Meta"
       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
    manuzhai adrian_h: how is your current position?
    adrian_h manuzhai: I'm getting more and more interested in the new syntax
       hugo- that way the new syntax works nicely and somehugo with the need for programmatically creating models can use the documented "lower level"
    adrian_h hugo-: That's a good solution
    adrian_h A lower-level API for creating models
    manuzhai adrian_h: that's good
       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
       rmunn mmarshall's patch would need some serious rewriting, then.
     Tybstar this is the suck.
       rmunn Tybstar: Ouch. What distro?
     Tybstar rmunn: it's a fedora machine
     Tybstar i wish viewsvn worked
   Netminder there's your problem :)
     Tybstar heh
       hugo- yikes. that's even worse than debians often-weird-dependencies :-)
           * Tybstar wishes slashzero were here
     Tybstar i just can't quite get viewsvn working
       BleSS why i get this error? AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'status_code'
           * rmunn *heart*s Synaptic
    adrian_h BleSS: Your view has to return an HttpResponse object
           * Notify: jacobkm is online (kornbluth.freenode.net).
           * jacobkm (n=jacob@74.57.cm.sunflower.com) has joined #django
   Boffbowsh BleSS: your get_object or whatever returned no object
   Boffbowsh hence the Nojne
   Boffbowsh *None
    adrian_h That's a good case for a better error message.
   Boffbowsh ahh, ok
       rmunn adrian_h: Special-case check to see if None was returned from the view?
    adrian_h rmunn: Yes
   mmarshall rmunn: My patch is very simple; even stupidly simple now that the no-name-for-ForeignKeys thing is no longer needed.
       hugo- since None is the implicit value for functions that are missing the return alltogether, I think that special case check would be usefull
   Boffbowsh nn all
           * proteusguy (n=proteusg@dsl027-163-201.atl1.dsl.speakeasy.net) has joined #django
           * Boffbowsh has quit ()
           * Dagur (n=dagur@dsl-196-5.hive.is) has left #django
           * cmlenz has quit ()
       BleSS adrian_h, whatever view has th reuturn an HttpResponse object? (my view simply add data to data base)
    manuzhai BleSS: you should redirect then
    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')
       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
       BleSS thanks
    adrian_h hugo-: Yay
       hugo- that should satisfy both the hacker and the maintainer in me ;-)
           * jvoorhis (n=user@cpe-24-93-226-82.neo.res.rr.com) has joined #django
    jvoorhis adrian_h: hi
    adrian_h Hi jvoorhis
    jvoorhis good work on the tutorial
           * ljoramo (n=ljoramo@69-25-223-154.acsol.net) has joined #django
    adrian_h jvoorhis: Thanks -- is everything going smoothly for you?
    jvoorhis yes, except for python gotchas
    adrian_h ah
    jvoorhis a tuple is like a constant array, i guess
   Netminder the sooner we make the change the better IMHO
    adrian_h Netminder: Yes
    adrian_h jacobkm: Hello
    manuzhai adrian_h: could you or jacobkm look at my patch for #289?
     jacobkm Howdy, adrian
     jacobkm Looks like the logging bot has been broken for a few days :(
    adrian_h Yeah :-(
       rmunn Who set up the loglibrary logging in the first place?
     jacobkm I did
       rmunn So you're the one who can fix it (if it can be fixed).
     jacobkm Yup
     jacobkm I'm trying to figure out what's wrong right now.
       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.
   Netminder I think loglibrary is having issues
   Netminder I don't think there's anything we can do
     jacobkm Hunh
       rmunn Actually, most of it has already scrolled off the top of my scrollback buffer.
    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/
     jacobkm I was afraid of that.
       rmunn Did anyone else manage to save the discussion from earlier?
    manuzhai does anyone else think the CherryPy page on the wiki is pointless?
    adrian_h manuzhai: Yeah, I just saw that and am tempted to delete it
       hugo- rmunn: I can put the log from the discussion as a comment on #122 if you want
    manuzhai I am, too
    adrian_h rmunn: I've got the discussion
    manuzhai please do so
    manuzhai it seems like FUD
       hugo- my scrollback buffer is big enough
       rmunn Yes, please do.
     jacobkm CherryPy page: gone
    manuzhai hugo-: an attachment to #122 might be better
    mrproper What is a closure & how does one use a closure in Python?  (I have an idea of closure from Javascript and event listeners)