On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 7:57 AM, Josiah Carlson <josiah.carlson at gmail.com> wrote: > 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 :/. In my mind, BSDDB is pretty much the most heavy-weight extension we're maintaining. I think it's an illusion that a sqlite-based look-alike is going to fool anyone. The correct solution is to take support for bsddb to a separate project where those who care about it can maintain it together. That also makes it a lot easier to track the versions of Berkeley DB as they come out. Of course, you're free to try writing the work-alike you're proposing. :-) -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4