On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 7:57 AM, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Invariably, when someone goes and removes a module, someone else is > going to complain, "but I used feature X, not having feature X will > break my code." We, as maintainers can then say, "if you cared, > maintain it." But I'm not sure that is the greatest thing to tell > people. I suspect that we may have to include some sort of > "work-alike" for 2.7 and if not 3.0, 3.1 . If I were to vote for a > work-alike, it would be based on sqlite. For one of the most common > use-cases (bsddb.btree), simple sqlite code can be written to do the > right thing. Recno is a little more tricky, but can also be done. > The bsddb hash may not be possible, because sqlite doesn't support > hashed indices :/.
In my mind, BSDDB is pretty much the most heavy-weight extension we're maintaining. I think it's an illusion that a sqlite-based look-alike is going to fool anyone. The correct solution is to take support for bsddb to a separate project where those who care about it can maintain it together. That also makes it a lot easier to track the versions of Berkeley DB as they come out. Of course, you're free to try writing the work-alike you're proposing. :-) -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
