On 23 May 2010, at 21:17, Lennart Regebro wrote: > On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 12:15, Brian Quinlan <brian at sweetapp.com> > wrote: >> You could make the same argument about any module in the stdlib. > > Yeah, and that's exactly what I did. > >> I doubt it. Simple modules are unlikely to develop a following >> because it is >> too easy to partially replicate their functionality. urlparse and >> os.path >> are very useful modules but I doubt that they would have been >> successful on >> PyPI. > > Are you saying your proposed module is so simple that anyone can > easily replicate it with just a couple of lines of code? Parts of it, yes. Just like I can replace most operations in os.path and urlparse with a few lines of code. >> The good news in this case is that the same API has been used >> successfully >> in Java and C++ for years so it is unlikely that any major changes >> will need >> to be made. > > Good. Then the time it takes to "mature" on PyPI would be very short. How would you define "very short"? I've had the project on PyPI for about a year now: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/futures3 Cheers, Brian
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