Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Django 1.6 alpha 1 released

djangoproject.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 36 posts

Re: Django 1.6 alpha 1 released

#21

Post by jacobian »

SiVal wrote: post #17
crdoconnor wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Django has supported python 3 since version 1.5 - the last major release: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/topics/python3/

Yes, but 1.5 claimed only "experimental support", adding that they thought it probably would work all right but didn't want to recommend Python 3 for production yet. The unqualified "yes, we now consider it ready and can recommend Python 3 for production," was promised for Django 1.6. They probably have achieved that goal, but the fact that there is no mention of it anywhere in a document that mentions so many other…

Again, see my comment up-thread. Your assumptions are rather incorrect.

Re: Django 1.6 alpha 1 released

#22

Post by jacobian »

speg wrote: post #13

Have they moved to a faster release schedule? I feel like 1.5 just came out and we can already expect 1.6 in August (not that I'm complaining about it).

We're trying to, yeah.

For this release specifically we wanted to have it out before the end of summer so that we can be ready to merge Andrew's migration work and any GSoC code and turn around another release quickly.

Re: Django 1.6 alpha 1 released

#23

Post by huxley »

SiVal wrote: post #17
crdoconnor wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Django has supported python 3 since version 1.5 - the last major release: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/topics/python3/

Yes, but 1.5 claimed only "experimental support", adding that they thought it probably would work all right but didn't want to recommend Python 3 for production yet. The unqualified "yes, we now consider it ready and can recommend Python 3 for production," was promised for Django 1.6. They probably have achieved that goal, but the fact that there is no mention of it anywhere in a document that mentions so many other…

Well, this is just the alpha release of the Django 1.6 so production recommendations (other than "don't use this for production yet") are probably a bit premature.

If you are very concerned about this, you should bring it up on the django-dev list:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/django-de...

Re: Django 1.6 alpha 1 released

#24

Post by yuvadam »

manojlds wrote: post #3

This is the most exciting and interesting thing in the release: Persistent database connections Django now supports reusing the same database connection for several requests. This avoids the overhead of re-establishing a connection at the beginning of each request. For backwards compatibility, this feature is disabled by default. See Persistent connections for details.

I would take a look at the actual implementation [1].

It is clearly not a full-featured connection pool. Sure, it gives some quick performance wins within each thread, but this is no proper cross-process connection pool.

[1] - https://github.com/django/django/commit/2ee21d9f0d9eaed0494f...

Re: Django 1.6 alpha 1 released

#25

Post by jacobian »

foobarram wrote: post #12

Pardon my ignorance but, `Persistent database connections` Is this the same as pgBouncer connection pooling? It does sound like the same - but unsure. I just spent a week learning and configuring pgBouncer! :(

Not exactly. It's not proper connection pooling -- for that, you still should be using an external pool like pgbouncer. Instead this is a single persistent connection per thread. The speed improvement should be about the same, but you something like pgbouncer gives you more control over the number of connections and offers a ton of extra features.

Re: Django 1.6 alpha 1 released

#26

Post by rbanffy »

est wrote: post #7
manojlds wrote: post #3

This is the most exciting and interesting thing in the release: Persistent database connections Django now supports reusing the same database connection for several requests. This avoids the overhead of re-establishing a connection at the beginning of each request. For backwards compatibility, this feature is disabled by default. See Persistent connections for details.

So, when will we have prepared statements upon persistent connections? This would be the biggest speed up of all factors.

As soon as someone decides to develop it. Remember: Django is open source software, maintained by a community of competent, dedicated and exceedingly generous developers who give us the privilege of using their software for free.

Re: Django 1.6 alpha 1 released

#27

Post by coldtea »

jacobian wrote: post #21
SiVal wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but 1.5 claimed only "experimental support", adding that they thought it probably would work all right but didn't want to recommend Python 3 for production yet. The unqualified "yes, we now consider it ready and can recommend Python 3 for production," was promised for Django 1.6. They probably have achieved that goal, but the fact that there is no mention of it anywhere in a document that mentions so many other…

Again, see my comment up-thread. Your assumptions are rather incorrect.

Yes, but his complaint is rather valid. Those that prepared the release notes made a mistake in not mentioning Python 3 related improvements / status.

Re: Django 1.6 alpha 1 released

#28

Post by sdfjkl »

SiVal wrote: post #17
crdoconnor wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Django has supported python 3 since version 1.5 - the last major release: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/topics/python3/

Yes, but 1.5 claimed only "experimental support", adding that they thought it probably would work all right but didn't want to recommend Python 3 for production yet. The unqualified "yes, we now consider it ready and can recommend Python 3 for production," was promised for Django 1.6. They probably have achieved that goal, but the fact that there is no mention of it anywhere in a document that mentions so many other…

It works fine. I'm working on my 2nd Django project using Python 3.3. The only missing component is South, and that isn't part of Django (although it'd be nice if it were).

Re: Django 1.6 alpha 1 released

#29

Post by foobarram »

jacobian wrote: post #25
foobarram wrote: post #12

Pardon my ignorance but, `Persistent database connections` Is this the same as pgBouncer connection pooling? It does sound like the same - but unsure. I just spent a week learning and configuring pgBouncer! :(

Not exactly. It's not proper connection pooling -- for that, you still should be using an external pool like pgbouncer. Instead this is a single persistent connection per thread. The speed improvement should be about the same, but you something like pgbouncer gives you more control over the number of connections and offers a ton of extra features.

Thank you very much for the clarification `jacobian` - I am assuming that django's connection pooling on 1.6 would still play nice with pgBouncer.

Re: Django 1.6 alpha 1 released

#30

Post by JshWright »

sdfjkl wrote: post #28
SiVal wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but 1.5 claimed only "experimental support", adding that they thought it probably would work all right but didn't want to recommend Python 3 for production yet. The unqualified "yes, we now consider it ready and can recommend Python 3 for production," was promised for Django 1.6. They probably have achieved that goal, but the fact that there is no mention of it anywhere in a document that mentions so many other…

It works fine. I'm working on my 2nd Django project using Python 3.3. The only missing component is South, and that isn't part of Django (although it'd be nice if it were).

It will be..

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/andrewgodwin/schema-migr...

Post reply on HN