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

Django 3.1

djangoproject.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 209 posts

Re: Django 3.1

#11

Post by rbanffy »

d33 wrote: post #8

Pardon the rant, but I feel that the advantages don't outweigh the fact that with each release some of my stuff gets broken and I need to adjust. Django puts DeprecationWarnings basically everywhere and it's a hell to maintain projects that had been alive for a few years. God forbid you do anything with the interfaces they expose. The problem is only getting worse when you consider your dependencies, which in many ca…

I tend to keep one CI pipeline with all dependencies unpinned (I made pip-chill for that reason) and Django set to the latest version to get early warnings of the impending doom.

That said, it takes a while for the Django folk to end support for a release so, at least, there is not much of a hurry to update a running app.

Re: Django 3.1

#12

Post by martpie »

konschubert wrote: post #4

Slightly OT: How does HN feel about the recent craze to make web python asynchronous? To me, the performance gains are dubious in many cases and the complexity overhead of handling cooperative multitasking just seems like a step back for a language like python.

Async operations have never been to speed things up, but to prevent synchronous operations from blocking threads.

This should have no (big) performance impact, but these will most probably allow better concurrency, which can be quite critical for a web framework.

Re: Django 3.1

#14

Post by fastball »

nojs wrote: post #10
grenoire wrote: post #6

JSONField has been an absolute godsend in combination with Django's ORM. I had been using it with Postgres and will likely keep our backend the same, but I cannot recommend it enough. You will have to write some validation and schema code on top if you want your data to have similar (but weaker) guarantees to the usual typed fields; the benefits from the flexibility you get are immeasurable though.

Can you give some examples where a relational schema isn’t suitable?

I use the JSONP column type in Postgres for data that is structured but user-supplied.

Re: Django 3.1

#15

Post by orf »

nojs wrote: post #10
grenoire wrote: post #6

JSONField has been an absolute godsend in combination with Django's ORM. I had been using it with Postgres and will likely keep our backend the same, but I cannot recommend it enough. You will have to write some validation and schema code on top if you want your data to have similar (but weaker) guarantees to the usual typed fields; the benefits from the flexibility you get are immeasurable though.

Can you give some examples where a relational schema isn’t suitable?

Storing historical webhook notifications

Re: Django 3.1

#16

Post by orf »

d33 wrote: post #8

Pardon the rant, but I feel that the advantages don't outweigh the fact that with each release some of my stuff gets broken and I need to adjust. Django puts DeprecationWarnings basically everywhere and it's a hell to maintain projects that had been alive for a few years. God forbid you do anything with the interfaces they expose. The problem is only getting worse when you consider your dependencies, which in many ca…

Can you elaborate on some of the things you've been frustrated with?

I find Django has a pretty solid deprecation policy, with the goal being that if you have no deprecation warnings then upgrading is simple. Third party dependencies do get in the way of that sometimes though.

Re: Django 3.1

#18

Post by iaml »

Jonnax wrote: post #3

Cool, they've implemented async views. ASGI has kinda passed me by. For some small project's I use Gunicorn. What's the setup for ASGI that's popular?

They support Daphne/uvicorn https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/3.1/howto/deployment/asgi/

I think in python world uvicorn is more popular choice, might be wrong tho

Re: Django 3.1

#19

Post by metafunctor »

d33 wrote: post #8

Pardon the rant, but I feel that the advantages don't outweigh the fact that with each release some of my stuff gets broken and I need to adjust. Django puts DeprecationWarnings basically everywhere and it's a hell to maintain projects that had been alive for a few years. God forbid you do anything with the interfaces they expose. The problem is only getting worse when you consider your dependencies, which in many ca…

My experience has been good, with a Django app maintained for over 8 years now. We've only updated Django when a new LTS version is out. That means once every two years there's an update that may break something, but I don't remember it ever being more than a few hours of work.

We do take some care to (mostly) only use documented interfaces, so maybe that helps?

Re: Django 3.1

#20

Post by kumarvvr »

nojs wrote: post #10
grenoire wrote: post #6

JSONField has been an absolute godsend in combination with Django's ORM. I had been using it with Postgres and will likely keep our backend the same, but I cannot recommend it enough. You will have to write some validation and schema code on top if you want your data to have similar (but weaker) guarantees to the usual typed fields; the benefits from the flexibility you get are immeasurable though.

Can you give some examples where a relational schema isn’t suitable?

Data that tends to change after the application is deployed.

More importantly, JSONFields can be used as a substitute for EAV pattern.

Post reply on HN