Colin,
Thanks for your input. I was intending on rolling these changes into my composite fields work, since it would give a better illustration of why the changes were useful, but I can create a separate PR with the changes.
`get/set_instance_value` are perfectly valid names and I agree, slightly less redundant. `get_form_data` is not a good candidate, as these methods are used in places internal to the fields API where that name would make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Any broken code will be subject to a lengthy deprecation period using the old method names, obviously so I don't think it would cause much of a difference.
I don't use form fields, so I can't share your pain.
As far as `_get_cache_name` goes, I had initially written `
subfield.name` to have the name relative to the composite field (so, having two composite fields of the same type would mean two different subfields with the same `name` attribute on the model). I've changed that implementation since (to support retrieving subfields via model._meta.get_field), so the change is no longer warranted.
PR for the 'value_from_object' change will come later today though.
Thanks,
Thomas