(original) (raw)

On Jan 19, 2012 9:28 AM, "Bill Janssen" <janssen@parc.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure how much of a problem this really is. �I continually build
> fairly complicated systems with Python that do a lot of HTTP networking,
> for instance. �It's fairly easy to replace use of the standard library
> modules with use of Tornado and httplib2, and I wouldn't think of \*not\*
> doing that. �But the standard modules are there, out-of-the-box, for
> experimentation and tinkering, and they work in the sense that they pass
> their module tests. �Are those standard modules as "Internet-proof" as
> some commercially-supported package with an income stream that supports
> frequent security updates would be?

This is starting to sound a little like the discussion about the \_\_preview\_\_ / \_\_experimental\_\_ idea.� If I recall correctly, one of the points is that for some organizations getting a third-party library approved for use is not trivial.� In contrast, inclusion in the stdlib is like a free pass, since the organization can rely on the robustness of the CPython QA and release processes.

As well, there is at least a small cost with third-party libraries for those that maintain more rigorous configuration management.� In contrast, there is basically no extra cost with new/updated stdlib, beyond upgrading Python.

-eric

>
> Perhaps not. �But maybe that's OK.
>
> Another way of doing this would be to "bless" certain third-party
> modules in some fashion short of incorporation, and provide them with
> more robust development support, again, "somehow", so that they don't
> fall by the wayside when their developers move on to something else,
> but are still able to release on an independent schedule.
>
> Bill
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev@python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ericsnowcurrently%40gmail.com