[Python-Dev] [Python-3000] No beta2 tonight (original) (raw)

Charles Hixson charleshixsn at earthlink.net
Fri Jul 18 21:35:46 CEST 2008

On Friday 18 July 2008 07:57:01 am Josiah Carlson wrote:

On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 7:21 AM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Fred Drake <fdrake at acm.org> wrote: >>>> On Jul 17, 2008, at 7:27 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote: >>>>> bsddb is in a very bad shape, as the 2.6 code hasn't been merged into >>>>> 3k. I somewhat doubt that this gets resolved before the release, so >>>>> bsddb users might need to skip 3.0. >>>> >>>> In fact, bsddb as packages in core Python has rarely been in good >>>> shape. >>>> >>>> Has anyone actually considered that bsddb might do better if >>>> maintained strictly as an external package? That would make it easier >>>> for the any maintainers to release updates, and removes a source of >>>> frustration for users who either don't need it or would rather wait >>>> for a happier version. >>>> >>>> I think this is worth considering. I vaguely recall that the bsddb >>>> module was maintained before it was incorporated into the core Python >>>> release. >>> >>> +1. In my recollection maintaining bsddb has been nothing but trouble >>> right from the start when we were all sitting together at "Zope Corp >>> North" in a rented office in McLean... We can remove it from 3.0. We >>> can't really remove it from 2.6, but we can certainly start >>> end-of-lifing it in 2.6. >> >> Unless I hear otherwise, I will add it to PEP 3108. > > Please do!

Invariably, when someone goes and removes a module, someone else is going to complain, "but I used feature X, not having feature X will break my code." We, as maintainers can then say, "if you cared, maintain it." But I'm not sure that is the greatest thing to tell people. I suspect that we may have to include some sort of "work-alike" for 2.7 and if not 3.0, 3.1 . If I were to vote for a work-alike, it would be based on sqlite. For one of the most common use-cases (bsddb.btree), simple sqlite code can be written to do the right thing. Recno is a little more tricky, but can also be done. The bsddb hash may not be possible, because sqlite doesn't support hashed indices :/. Just an idea. - Josiah

Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev at python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/charleshixsn%40earthlink. net

Were I to vote for "something" it would be a B+Tree in collections. One that didn't impose a requirement that the key be a string (and not, e.g., an integer or a float).

OTOH, I don't care enough to build it. (I've proven this to myself repeatedly, as I've started to create such a thing, and then kludged a different solution.)

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list