[Python-Dev] Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] zipfile still has 2GB boundary bug

2005-04-26 Thread Charles Hartman
Someone should think about rewriting the zipfile module to be less hideous, include a repair feature, and be up to date with the latest specifications http://www.pkware.com/company/standards/appnote/. -- and allow *deleting* a file from a zipfile. As far as I can tell, you now can't (except by

Re: [Python-Dev] Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] zipfile still has 2GB boundary bug

2005-04-26 Thread Guido van Rossum
Someone should think about rewriting the zipfile module to be less hideous, include a repair feature, and be up to date with the latest specifications http://www.pkware.com/company/standards/appnote/. -- and allow *deleting* a file from a zipfile. As far as I can tell, you now can't

Re: [Python-Dev] Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] zipfile still has 2GB boundary bug

2005-04-26 Thread Bob Ippolito
On Apr 26, 2005, at 8:24 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: Someone should think about rewriting the zipfile module to be less hideous, include a repair feature, and be up to date with the latest specifications http://www.pkware.com/company/standards/appnote/. -- and allow *deleting* a file from a

Re: [Python-Dev] Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] zipfile still has 2GB boundary bug

2005-04-26 Thread Alan McIntyre
Bob Ippolito wrote: One of the most useful things that could happen to the zipfile module would be a stream interface for both reading and writing. Right now it's slow and memory hungry when dealing with large chunks. The use case that lead me to fix this bug is a tool that archives video

Re: [Python-Dev] Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] zipfile still has 2GB boundary bug

2005-04-26 Thread Shane Hathaway
Bob Ippolito wrote: The zipfile module is good enough to create input files for zipimport.. which is well tested and generally works -- barring the fact that zipimport has quite a few rough edges of its own. I certainly wouldn't recommend it for any heavy duty tasks in its current state.

Re: [Python-Dev] Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] zipfile still has 2GB boundary bug

2005-04-26 Thread Guido van Rossum
Please don't propose a grand rewrite (even it's only a single module). Given that the API is mostly sensible, please propose gradual refactoring of the implementation, perhaps some new API methods, and so on. Don't throw away the work that went into making it work in the first place!