In reply to Cristan Gaton's post on Fri Sep 8
(which I didn't receive, it seems I'm missing out some db-sig posts)
Cristan,
when one writes a specification, one should assume that it will be
implemented to it's semantical limits and implementators will seek to
make it as performant and robust as they see fit and are able to.
To the extent that specification requirements aren't a limiting factor
to the performance or robusness of implementation, such details are
best left off the specification.
Those issues are best discussed outside the specification, in places
like this mailing list.
At least, that is my theory regarding writing specifications. Anyone is
welcome to disagree. :)
If some bindings' developers didn't take advantage of some backend
feature because they mis-interpreted the DB-API spec, then maybe we
should go to them and state that it could be better implemented.
If they didn't because they didn't have the time or skill to do so,
they we should contribute with some code that does.
Only in the case that they didn't because the specification makes it
unfeasable for them to do so we should look for a new extension that
can take advantage of feature X in a feasable way.
--
Ricardo
_______________________________________________
DB-SIG maillist - DB-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/db-sig
