[Python-Dev] Re: Another approach for the import mechanism (original) (raw)

Chermside, Michael mchermside@ingdirect.com
Mon, 9 Dec 2002 08:33:02 -0500

Gustavo Niemeyer writes:

- Don't have to change path to use compressed packages (at least not if you want to provide compressed packages, individual compressed modules or the standard library). =20 - Don't have to specify the compression type hardcoded. =20 - Allows one to ship a package inside a zip file, without asking the user to change his path, and without hacking the package. =20 - Allows one to compress a single file (foobar.py.bz2). =20 I belive that my propose is quite clear now. If there are no additional supporters, there's no reason to go on.

I think this proposal would make sense IF compression were an important goal here. But to me, it isn't. Zip does two things... it aggregates into a single file (maintaining directory structure) and it compresses. Of the two, I find the aggregation important and the compression a mere side effect.

This is why I really don't care much about switching to a different compression (or aggregation) format -- one standard way to do it is more useful to me than a BETTER way. It is why I don't care about compressing a single file. Basically, disk space is cheap, but effort to keep track of (and distribute) complex file hierarchies isn't.

Thanks to everyone who discussed.

And thanks for your contributions too. I don't realize exactly what I was looking for from .zip until you explained so clearly the benefits of your proposal.

-- Michael Chermside