On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 17:04 -0700, David Lindquist wrote: [...] > Why has it taken so long for Django to acquire this functionality > when a framework like Ruby on Rails has had it for years? Is there > something about Django that makes it more difficult to implement? Was > the Rails implementation hastily added? Is it simply low on the > priority list?
It's a fundamentally hard problem, both at the database level and, particularly, working out what the public API looks like. There's also no definiton of what "migration" means. If you have a look at django-evolution, dmigrations and South, you'll see three different approaches to the API, all of which have strengths and weaknesses. Any solution in this area is going to require compromises and not be suitable for everybody. Right now, we already have a solution. It's called "ALTER TABLE". it's the most robust, reliable solution possible and Django has had it since day one. Since it's provably impossible to automatically do schema migration between all types of model variations, anything else is only polishing the corners for some use-cases. Rails has chosen to polish one particular set, Django isn't rushing to judgement and is arriving at what will hopefully be a very good solution. Regards, Malcolm --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
