[Python-Dev] bsddb alternative (was Re: [issue3769] Deprecate bsddb for removal in 3.0) (original) (raw)
C. Titus Brown ctb at msu.edu
Thu Sep 4 17:10:50 CEST 2008
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] bsddb alternative (was Re: [issue3769] Deprecate bsddb for removal in 3.0)
- Next message: [Python-Dev] bsddb alternative (was Re: [issue3769] Deprecate bsddb for removal in 3.0)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 11:01:35AM -0400, Tony Nelson wrote: -> At 7:37 AM -0700 9/4/08, C. Titus Brown wrote: -> >On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 10:29:10AM -0400, Tony Nelson wrote: -> ... -> >-> Shipping an application to end users is a different problem. Such packages -> >-> should include a private copy of Python as well as of any dependent -> >-> libraries, as tested. -> > -> >Why? On Mac OS X, for example, Python comes pre-installed -- not sure -> >if it comes with Tk yet, but the next version probably will. On Windows -> >there's a handy few-click installer that installs Tk. Is there some -> >reason why I shouldn't be relying on those distributions?? -> -> Yes. An application is tested with one version of Python and one version -> of its libraries. When MOSX updates Python or some other library, you are -> relying on their testing of your application. Unless you are Adobe or -> similarly large they didn't do that testing. Perhaps you have noticed the -> threads about installing a new Python release over the Python that came -> with an OS, and how bad an idea that is? This is the same issue, from the -> other side.
I have to say I've never had problems with a stock install of Python on either Mac OS X or Windows (shockingly enough :). I think this is good advice for applications that rely on external libraries, but I just don't see any problems with relying on Python 2.5 to contain all the things that normally come with Python 2.5. It seems like you're pushing a pretty sharp dichotomy (trichotomy?) --
Python library/core developers should compile it all.
Python app developers can rely on what they install from binaries themselves, but not rely on it to be present on anyone else's machine or OS.
End users should be given a complete clean install of Python in a different location for each application they're using, even if those applications depend only on the stdlib.
This seems surprisingly complicated to me (and unnecessary, in my limited experience) -- but it does validate my decade-old decision to avoid writing end-user applications in Python, sadly enough. It ends up being less work to distribute and support a C/C++ app on Windows and Mac OS X, for crikey's sake!
--t
C. Titus Brown, ctb at msu.edu
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] bsddb alternative (was Re: [issue3769] Deprecate bsddb for removal in 3.0)
- Next message: [Python-Dev] bsddb alternative (was Re: [issue3769] Deprecate bsddb for removal in 3.0)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]