[Python-Dev] Fixing the XML batteries (original) (raw)

Terry Reedy tjreedy at udel.edu
Mon Feb 6 20:35:55 CET 2012

On 2/6/2012 8:01 AM, Eli Bendersky wrote:

On one hand I agree that ET should be emphasized since it's the better API with a much faster implementation. But I also understand Martin's point of view that minidom has its place, so IMHO some sort of compromise should be reached. Perhaps we can recommend using ET for those not specifically interested in the DOM interface, but for those who are, minidom is still a good stdlib option (?).

If you can, go ahead and write a patch saying something like that. It should not be hard to come up with something that is a definite improvement. Create a tracker issue for comment. but don't let it sit forever.

Tying this doc clarification with an optimization in minidom is not something that makes sense. This is just delaying a much needed change forever.

Right.

This, at least in my view, is the more important point which unfortunately got much less attention in the thread. I was a bit shocked to see that in 3.3 trunk we still have both the Python and C versions exposed and only formally document ElementTree (the Python version), The only reference to cElementTree is an un-emphasized note:

A C implementation of this API is available as xml.etree.cElementTree.

Since the current policy seems to be to hide C behind Python when there is both, I assume that finishing the transition here is something just not gotten around to yet. Open another issue if there is not one.

Is there anything that really blocks providing cElementTree on "import ElementTree" and removing the explicit cElementTree for 3.3 (or at least leaving it with a deprecation warning)?

If cElementTree were renamed _ElementTree for import from ElementTree, then a new cElementTree.py could raise the warning and then import _ElementTree also.

-- Terry Jan Reedy

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list