Anthony Baxter wrote: > I'd like to suggest we include sqlite in the standard library for 2.4. > > It's maintained, is a full-featured SQL database with a very small footprint > and very little needed in the way of dead chickens to get it up and running. I'm the (currently only active) PySQLite maintainer, so I think I'm qualified to comment on this ;) Before we can think about including this into the Python distribution there are two things I'd need to do: - code cleanup and documentatino (inline documentation is quite sparse) - writing documentation (the PySQLite documentation is quite outdated, and doesn't cover the advanced nonstandard features, like writing aggregates/functions in Python, etc.) Inclusion in the Python standard library means an API freeze. I'm not sure all of PySQLite has the best interfaces, yet. One solution could be to only document the parts where we consider the API *stable*. Last, but not least, I don't see the tremendous benefit of a simple embedded SQL database in the Python standard distribution. Sure, Windows users would have to download one thing less, but for Unix users nothing much will change, because we'd most probably still require an existing SQLite installation. And SQLite is nothing that you can expect being installed, anyway, like BSDdb is. So, more or less, Unix users will only save downloading PySQLite separately. -- Gerhard
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