On Thursday 30 March 2006 12:15, skip at pobox.com wrote: > Someone was throwing around names like db.sqlite as the place to > install pysqlite. Dunno who originally suggested it, but the theory was that there's some issue with toplevel library namespace pollution. I'm not too stressed out one way or the other - but starting off with 'db.sqlite' (and then maybe moving/aliasing db.bsddb &c at a future point) doesn't seem like a bad idea. > That suggests other database interface modules > like db.mysql, db.postgresql, db.sybase, etc. Given that we > probably won't include all those as standard modules, we should > make it easy for someone to install one or more of those modules > via normal external mechanisms and have them appear seamlessly to > the Python programmer. Then I begin to wonder why bother with > db.sqlite at all. Why not just create an empty db package that > does the pkgutil or pkg_resources dance and let people install all > N database interfaces instead of just N-1? The same could be said of vast amounts of the standard library. Anthony -- Anthony Baxter <anthony at interlink.com.au> It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
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