On Sat, 2008-10-04 at 21:36 -0700, Thejaswi Puthraya wrote:
> Hi,
> I was going through the patch by carljm for #8630 [1] and decided to
> give it a try. I ran into troubles but not with the patch. The reason
> being comment templatetags reference 'is_public' [2] and
> 'is_removed' [3] fields of the Comment Model.
>
> The idea for comments customization was to push essential fields onto
> BaseCommentAbstractModel and then inherit from this model. This would
> reduce the need to rewrite templatetags but I screwed this while
> sending patches just before the merge into trunk.
>
> I can think of two solutions to solve the problem. The first one being
>
http://dpaste.com/82448/ and the second one (
http://dpaste.com/82449/)
> to push the 'is_public' and 'is_removed' fields onto the
> BaseCommentAbstract Model. Both these changes are backward-compatible.
The second approach does introduce an incompatibility. Anybody who has
created a model using that ABC would now have to alter their tables.
It's not part of the guaranteed stable API, so it's not impossible to
change, but does introduce a backwards-incompatible change.