On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 02:10:59PM -0400, Guido van Rossum wrote: > Fredrik Lundh's xmlrpclib.py looks ready for the Python standard > library, if Fredrik agrees. The license is right. I'm not sure but I > believe that Eric Kidd's version is C or C++ code that *could* be > linked into Python? This seems less attractive because there will > always have to be a separate distribution (for non-Python targets). I recommend using /F's library. It's less than a thousand lines of nice, clean Python, and it doesn't duplicate any code in the Python core. My library is quite a bit faster, but it contains lots of C code which duplicates Python features. The right solution is use /F's code. And if his code isn't fast enough, small sections can be rewritten in C without breaking the API. > But maybe the motivation is wrong. We should decide to include (or > not to include) xml-rpc based on a user need, not based on political > motives. There may be a user need; Fredrik, do you know how popular > your xmlrpc module is? Moderately popular, AFAIK--it's currently bundled with Zope, and it's one of the nicest XML-RPC libraries out there. I've actually used Fredrik's library in more projects than my own. This is probably because I'd rather program in Python than C. :-) Cheers, Eric
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