The code LGTM with a few changes.
I am a bit confused as to where we're going with this work. It feels a little like you're reinventing Zope. :) Let's not do that.
https://codereview.appspot.com/37820046/diff/1/quickstart/models/fields.py File quickstart/models/fields.py (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/37820046/diff/1/quickstart/models/fields.py#newcode63 quickstart/models/fields.py:63: - editable: True if the associated value must be considered immutable. This definition seems backwards. s/immutable/mutable/ ?
https://codereview.appspot.com/37820046/diff/1/quickstart/models/fields.py#newcode77 quickstart/models/fields.py:77: been previously validated. Should there be a trap for that situation? A _validated flag?
https://codereview.appspot.com/37820046/
« Back to merge proposal
The code LGTM with a few changes.
I am a bit confused as to where we're going with this work. It feels a
little like you're reinventing Zope. :) Let's not do that.
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/37820046/ diff/1/ quickstart/ models/ fields. py models/ fields. py (right):
File quickstart/
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/37820046/ diff/1/ quickstart/ models/ fields. py#newcode63 models/ fields. py:63: - editable: True if the associated value mutable/ ?
quickstart/
must be considered immutable.
This definition seems backwards. s/immutable/
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/37820046/ diff/1/ quickstart/ models/ fields. py#newcode77 models/ fields. py:77: been previously validated.
quickstart/
Should there be a trap for that situation? A _validated flag?
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/37820046/