Martin v. Löwis wrote: > Guido van Rossum wrote: > > Unless you've recanted on that already, let me point out that I've > > never seen sqlite, and I've ignored this thread, so I don't > know what > > the disagreement is all about. Perhaps one person in favor and one > > person against could summarize the argument for me? Otherwise I'll > > have to go with "no" just to err on the side of safety. I > have strong > > feelings about the language. Sometimes I have strong feelings about > > the library. This doesn't seem to be one of those cases though... > > Let me try to take both sides simultaneously: > > For: would add an SQL library to the standard distribution, and one > that doesn't depend on additional infrastructure on the target machine > (such as an existing database server); the author of that library is > fine with including it in Python > > Against: Adds work-load on the release process, adding more libraries > to the already-large list of new libraries for 2.5. Choice of naming > things is ad-hoc, but gets cast in stone by the release; likewise, > choice of specific SQL library might inhibit addition of different > libraries later. More Against?: Explaining "database is locked" errors (due to SQLite's exposed multiple-readers/one-writer design) on a daily basis (FAQ entries notwithstanding). Robert Brewer System Architect Amor Ministries fumanchu at amor.org
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