Hello all, There must be something about the way I write my comments that may be making them sound worst than I want. I have _no_ intention to start a flame war... and I really would like to make it sound constructive. I apologize if it sounded otherwise. (I have a few comments that still belong here, if only to clarify things) On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 10:54:34 +0200, M.-A. Lemburg <mal at egenix.com> wrote: > Note that there is no need to "settle things": the DB-API > spec has been around for many years, is very stable, > widely used and still flexible enough to meet requirements > of various different database backends. There are several packages around that don't implement the DB API correctly, or implement a completely different API. This is clearly not a fault of the DB API itself, or of its developers, but it's an issue for its users. It's a difficult situation, because nobody is really in a position to enforce compliance. In this sense, bringing the issue to the standard library _could_ be helpful. One suggestion is to have a reference implementation -- for example, a simple DB API module, or a library that makes use of DB-API compliant modules. Of course, it's open to discussion whether this is feasible or not; for now it's only a personal opinion. > If you feel that a certain feature is missing, I'd suggest > you direct your constructive criticism to the db-sig at python.org. I think the DB API itself is fine. What is lacking is some way to make sure that everyone _comply_ to it. If that's can be done within the DB-SIG group alone, fine. -- Carlos Ribeiro Consultoria em Projetos blog: http://rascunhosrotos.blogspot.com blog: http://pythonnotes.blogspot.com mail: carribeiro at gmail.com mail: carribeiro at yahoo.com
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