Antoine Pitrou, 16.04.2011 16:19:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 09:50:25 +0000 (UTC)
Vinay Sajip wrote:
If it is generally considered desirable to maintain some synchrony between
simplejson and stdlib json, then since Bob has stated that he no interest in
Python 3, it may be better to:
1. Convert the simplejson codebase so that it runs on both Python 2 and 3
(without running 2to3 on it). Once this is done, if upstream accepts these
changes, ongoing maintenance will be fairly simple for upstream, and changes
only really need to consider exception and string/byte literal syntax, for the
most part.
2. Merge this new simplejson with stdlib json for 3.3.
What you're proposing doesn't address the question of who is going to
do the ongoing maintenance. Bob apparently isn't interested in
maintaining stdlib code, and python-dev members aren't interested in
maintaining simplejson (assuming it would be at all possible). Since
both groups of people want to work on separate codebases, I don't see
how sharing a single codebase would be possible.
Well, if that is not possible, then the CPython devs will have a hard time
maintaining the json accelerator module in the long run. I quickly skipped
through the github version in simplejson, and it truly is some complicated
piece of code. Not in the sense that the code is ununderstandable, it's
actually fairly straight forward string processing code, but it's so
extremely optimised and tailored and has so much code duplicated for the
bytes and unicode types (apparently following the copy+paste+adapt pattern)
that it will be pretty hard to adapt to future changes of CPython,
especially the upcoming PEP 393 implementation. Maintaining this is clearly
no fun.
Stefan
_______________________________________________
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
