On Thursday 30 March 2006 12:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> It's never too late to have a happy childhood. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com