On Jun 4, 6:12 pm, Russell Keith-Magee <[email protected]>
wrote:
> * The swapping mechanic is set up using a new Meta option on models
> called 'swappable' that defines the setting where an alternate model
> can be defined. Technically, the swappable option *could* be used for
> any model; however, I'm not proposing that we actually document this.
> I've implemented it as a generic approach purely to make the internals
> cleaner -- mostly to avoid needing to make references to auth.User in
> the model syncdb code, and to make testing possible (i.e., we can do
> validation tests on a dummy 'swappable' model, rather than trying to
> munge a validation test for auth.User specifically).
The "swappable" meta attribute part of the patch raises a question:
would the following pattern work instead of the meta attribute:
# in auth/models.py
if settings.AUTH_USER_MODEL:
User = get_model(AUTH_USER_MODEL)
else:
class User(models.Model):
# the traditional auth-user model definition here
If I understand the patch correctly the "swappable" Meta option
basically just removes the model from the app-cache. This means the
model will not be synced or validated. In addition you can't make
foreign keys to the swapped out model due to other changes in the
patch. Still, the auth.User model exists, and is importable.
The idea above gets rid of the User model 100% if
settings.AUTH_USER_MODEL is set. In runtime it never exists at any
level. It is very simple in this regard, and of course the
implementation is simple, too.
Is there some design consideration which prevents the use of the above
mentioned idea?
- Anssi
--
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.
