Josiah Carlson wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Fred Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 18, 2008, at 1:45 PM, Josiah Carlson wrote:
It's entirely possible that I know very little about what was being
made available via the bsddb module, but to match the API of what is
included in the documentation (plus the dictionary interface that it
supports) shouldn't be terribly difficult.
It's also entirely possible that the API isn't interesting if you don't
support existing databases, for many applications.
I see where the confusion was. I'm not suggesting that someone write
a new bsddb module, I'm suggesting that we can provide something
called, perhaps, on_disk_dictionary, which offers the behavior of
bsddb, without using bsddb anywhere, or supporting bsddb files.
No, I knew what you were suggesting, I just don't see the point in doing
it. If an app depends on bsddb specifically, they can either stick with
the 2.x series, or they can move to 3.0 and download the externally
maintained pybsddb (modulo any additional licensing checks required by a
company's contracts department) or they can switch to a simpler
file-based database format like sqlite3.
I'm not clear on what problem you are attempting to solve with the idea
of a module with the bsddb API but without an actual bsddb backend.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
_______________________________________________
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
