Received: by 10.229.192.137 with SMTP id dq9mr806897qcb.14.1285509982706;
        Sun, 26 Sep 2010 07:06:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: django-developers@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.229.173.155 with SMTP id p27ls1837056qcz.3.p; Sun, 26 Sep 2010
 07:06:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.191.137 with SMTP id dm9mr731335qcb.17.1285509974836;
        Sun, 26 Sep 2010 07:06:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.191.137 with SMTP id dm9mr731334qcb.17.1285509974801;
        Sun, 26 Sep 2010 07:06:14 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <hanne....@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id y16si2717105qce.8.2010.09.26.07.06.13;
        Sun, 26 Sep 2010 07:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of hanne....@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.172 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.172;
Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of hanne....@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.172 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=hanne....@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header...@gmail.com
Received: by qyk1 with SMTP id 1so3433224qyk.3
        for <django-developers@googlegroups.com>; Sun, 26 Sep 2010 07:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to
         :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
        bh=sUSzlVg2YzDdtAfHnsw1W7fat+CvhQHSwhWc8Obrlww=;
        b=VLefBPBx3bCW9vGjJVMKOMoeYkHKK47pg4Now7p6eatyB4c5cYYJILZu0MIU28lMnx
         1MOfGSwnUouE4KblUf+PhNuXwGbE311i2RuLKSM7FTo3/EuHLGYFjbS0aCI0qc8yh/p0
         gPy7fKsgPV6h/oS7z3KoaXxhllPEXkUt26AR8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=gij01y3EgMM+JSZ4HY5NFW9QPqHI8hLGEzNGhqEZmGY3i0ReEI9DaGegtCof0mOmAB
         YaXfF72DQ8jQynmJ85D8mQHnHeBAzq5F1jt3RrZwEA+vO+sjLFfyK7Uj+RR9YS8bwWA+
         957o7+MxpRu5RQ0QJm74FmTM3BV1H9UfKOSao=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.213.200 with SMTP id gx8mr4587696qcb.89.1285509973565;
 Sun, 26 Sep 2010 07:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.21.199 with HTTP; Sun, 26 Sep 2010 07:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <dbe17aa7-03e3-45a9-b576-4b9936bdd...@f6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
References: <dbe17aa7-03e3-45a9-b576-4b9936bdd...@f6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 16:06:13 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTikUdGaFn4UcwS+YZQ=9wCKvXF+Af0if0U3D8...@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: proposal for lazy foreignkeys
From: Hanne Moa <hanne....@gmail.com>
To: django-developers@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 25 September 2010 19:47, Carl Meyer <carl.j.me...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. Reusable apps overuse GenericForeignKey. GFKs are inefficient and
> smell bad.

I seem to gradually be going away from GenericForeignKey and using
"Glue"-models instead. App1, model1, is connected to App2, model2 via
App3, Glue-model3, which has foreign-keys to model1 and model2, and
sometimes a little extra. App1 and App2 need not know about eachother
at all that way.

I'm considering making my own tagging-module this way, as tags *is*
one of the reusable apps that is useful to connect to more than one
model in a project. Ditto for comments.


HM