On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Jannis Leidel <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12.09.2011, at 22:44, Carl Meyer wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Hi Gary, >> >> On 09/12/2011 12:04 AM, Gary Wilson Jr. wrote: >>> I'm a fan of not requiring a models.py, as IMHO it shouldn't be any >>> different than other common files found in an app e.g. urls.py, >>> templatetags dir, etc. If I don't need any models for my app, then >>> why must I still have a models.py? That said, it also seems there >>> could be some backwards incompatibilities if code or external tools >>> rely on a valid app including a models.py file. >> >> Actually, I think there's generally consensus that requiring models.py >> is not ideal. There's already an existing GSoC branch (app-loading), >> which already fixes the models.py issue (AFAIK) but is somewhat >> languishing for lack of attention. So I think the best path towards >> getting that fixed is to check out that branch and help get it in >> merge-ready shape. Jannis was the mentor for that GSoC, he or Arthur >> Koziel (the student) can probably comment most knowledgeably about what >> needs to be done. > > > Right now this needs a thorough code review to decide how to go forward. There > are several open questions, e.g. how to get the general (non-app-loading) test > suite integrated with the changes of the app loading. The main problem there > is that runtests.py has a hardwired assumption about how the app cache works, > basically a chicken-egg problem. That said, the app-loading changes itself is > well tested separately as pure-Python unit tests [1]. > > Some people have started to review but never got back to me, which -- and I > hate to write that since Arthur and me spent so much time on it -- makes me > wonder if we ever get close enough to merging this. I'm convinced it's really > useful, but as it's such a core part of Django it also definitely needs more > than two sets of eyes. Was there any interest at DjangoCon US?
Yes - there was a huge amount of interest; especially, given that it provides a way to solve the "app startup" problem, and provides the starting point for addressing the custom User model problem. As one of the people who has let you down on reviews -- I apologize. I was hoping to get a chance to look at this at DjangoCon, but I didn't get the time. Now I'm back in the office, I'm being slowly swallowed by work. I'd like to be able to commit to doing a review in the near future, but being realistic, that isn't going to happen any time soon. Yours, Russ Magee %-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
