[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

> On 29 Mar 2022, at 19:51, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 8:58 AM Ronald Oussoren > wrote: > > >> On 29 Mar 2022, at 00:34, Brett Cannon > > wrote: >> >> >> >> Once >>

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 11:55 AM Brett Cannon wrote: > You're right that is the fundamental problem. But for me this somewhat stems > from the fact that we don't have a shared understanding of what the stdlib > is, and so the stdlib is a bit unbounded in its size and scope. That leads > to a

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

On Wed, Mar 30, 2022, 12:02 PM Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > As just one example, i found two interesting items in the discussion > started by Skip about determining what modules don't have maintainers just > downstream if this. > Age in snake years doesn't necessarily correlate well with one's

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 4:53 AM Barney Gale wrote: > On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 at 12:20, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > >> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 12:03:58 +0100 >> Steve Dower wrote: >> > On 30Mar2022 1124, Barney Gale wrote: >> > > I'd like to become a maintainer for the pathlib module, if possible. >> I >>

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

On Tue, Mar 29, 2022, 10:55 AM Brett Cannon wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 8:58 AM Ronald Oussoren > wrote: > >> >> >> On 29 Mar 2022, at 00:34, Brett Cannon wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 11:52 AM Christopher Barker >> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 11:29 AM Paul

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

On 3/30/2022 12:32 PM, Baptiste Carvello wrote: Le 28/03/2022 à 18:44, Steve Dower a écrit : I think to most people "batteries included" doesn't necessarily mean "standard library," with all that implies. It just means "it came with the first thing that I installed" (or alternatively, "at no

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2022, 9:44 am Toshio Kuratomi, wrote: > One thing about talking about "make urllib more like requests" that is > different than any of the other libs, though, is that requests aims to be > easier to use than anything else (which I note Chris Barker called out as > why he wanted

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 at 12:28, Steve Dower wrote: > > On 30Mar2022 1132, Baptiste Carvello wrote: > > Le 28/03/2022 à 18:44, Steve Dower a écrit : > >> I think to most people "batteries included" doesn't necessarily mean > >> "standard library," with all that implies. It just means "it came with >

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 at 12:20, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 12:03:58 +0100 > Steve Dower wrote: > > On 30Mar2022 1124, Barney Gale wrote: > > > I'd like to become a maintainer for the pathlib module, if possible. I > > > know the code and tests inside-out, and I've been wrestling

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

On 30Mar2022 1132, Baptiste Carvello wrote: Le 28/03/2022 à 18:44, Steve Dower a écrit : I think to most people "batteries included" doesn't necessarily mean "standard library," with all that implies. It just means "it came with the first thing that I installed" (or alternatively, "at no

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 12:03:58 +0100 Steve Dower wrote: > On 30Mar2022 1124, Barney Gale wrote: > > I'd like to become a maintainer for the pathlib module, if possible. I > > know the code and tests inside-out, and I've been wrestling the > > internals for past few Python releases. I check the

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

Le 28/03/2022 à 18:44, Steve Dower a écrit : > I think to most people "batteries included" doesn't necessarily mean > "standard library," with all that implies. It just means "it came with > the first thing that I installed" (or alternatively, "at no additional > charge"). A point I have not seen

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

On 30Mar2022 1124, Barney Gale wrote: I'd like to become a maintainer for the pathlib module, if possible. I know the code and tests inside-out, and I've been wrestling the internals for past few Python releases. I check the bugs/PRs at least every week and help wherever I can. Antoine is

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 at 20:37, Steve Dower wrote: > email doesn't fix bugs; maintainers fix bugs. Please let us know > *publicly* if you want to become the maintainer for a stdlib module and > then we can support them, but if nobody is willing/able/ready to care > for them it's irresponsible for

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

I'm probably overly stressing a well understood point here that urllib.parse is incredibly widely used and critical to many foundational libraries in Python. But I just came across this today that: conda is migrating from urllib3 for parsing to urllib.parse:

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

There's also the "Experts index" in the devguide:  https://devguide.python.org/experts/#expertsBest, Alex Original message From: Skip Montanaro Date: 29/03/2022 22:36 (GMT+00:00) To: "Eric V. Smith" Cc: Python Dev Subject: [Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

On 3/29/2022 4:55 PM, Skip Montanaro wrote: I was trying to think through how a "remote" stdlib might work. In the process, I got to wondering if there are known "specialists" for various current modules. Every now and then I still get assigned (or at least made nosy) about something to do with

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

> > There's the CODEOWNERS file: > https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/main/.github/CODEOWNERS Thanks. Never would have thought there was such a thing. I was looking for files with "maintain" in them. Skimming it, it would seem that most of the stuff in Lib or Modules isn't really associated

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

On 3/29/2022 4:55 PM, Skip Montanaro wrote: I was trying to think through how a "remote" stdlib might work. In the process, I got to wondering if there are known "specialists" for various current modules. Every now and then I still get assigned (or at least made nosy) about something to do

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

I was trying to think through how a "remote" stdlib might work. In the process, I got to wondering if there are known "specialists" for various current modules. Every now and then I still get assigned (or at least made nosy) about something to do with the csv module. Is there an official

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 8:58 AM Ronald Oussoren wrote: > > > On 29 Mar 2022, at 00:34, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 11:52 AM Christopher Barker > wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 11:29 AM Paul Moore wrote: >> >>> To be honest, I feel like I'm just reiterating stuff

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

> On 29 Mar 2022, at 00:34, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 11:52 AM Christopher Barker > wrote: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 11:29 AM Paul Moore > wrote: > To be honest, I feel like I'm just reiterating stuff I've

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

> email doesn't fix bugs; maintainers fix bugs. Please let us > know *publicly* if you want to become the maintainer for a stdlib > module and then we can support them, but if nobody is > willing/able/ready to care for them it's irresponsible for us to keep > shipping them to users. At the

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

Am 27.03.22 um 18:11 schrieb Christopher Barker: On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 3:08 AM Paul Moore wrote: > > 3. Overall, I think the days where "battery included" was a positive argument are over > > I strongly disagree.  Being able to download something and immediately get

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 at 00:37, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > One thing about talking about "make urllib more like requests" that is > different than any of the other libs, though, is that requests aims to be > easier to use than anything else (which I note Chris Barker called out as why > he wanted

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

On Sun, Mar 27, 2022, 11:07 AM Paul Moore wrote: > On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 at 17:11, Christopher Barker > wrote: > > Back to the topic at hand, rather than remove urllib, maybe it could be > made better -- an as-easy-to-use-as-requests package in the stdlib would be > really great. > > I think

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 11:52 AM Christopher Barker wrote: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 11:29 AM Paul Moore wrote: > >> To be honest, I feel like I'm just reiterating stuff I've said before >> here, and I think the same is true of the points I'm responding to > > ... > >> (I'm not *against*

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 at 20:37, Steve Dower wrote: > Please let us know > *publicly* if you want to become the maintainer for a stdlib module and > then we can support them, but if nobody is willing/able/ready to care > for them it's irresponsible for us to keep shipping them to users. I'm sorry

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

> What happens when the new maintainer puts malware in the next release of > a package in sumo.txt? > Will core devs be blamed for listing it? > As a user, how do I determine if I can trust the packages there? (This > is easily the hardest part of finding and installing a package from > PyPI,

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

On 3/28/2022 7:26 PM, Paul Moore wrote: To be honest, I feel like I'm just reiterating stuff I've said before here, and I think the same is true of the points I'm responding to. Is there actually any new development here, or is it just a repeat of the same positions people have expressed in the

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 11:29 AM Paul Moore wrote: > To be honest, I feel like I'm just reiterating stuff I've said before > here, and I think the same is true of the points I'm responding to ... > (I'm not *against* going over the debate again, > it helps make sure people haven't changed

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 11:04 AM Paul Moore wrote: > > In fact, this is an example, I think, of where we should put some effort > into making the included batteries better -- it's great to have a JSON lib > built in, but it's too bad that it's not best-of-bread by pretty much any > definition

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 at 17:45, Steve Dower wrote: > > I think to most people "batteries included" doesn't necessarily mean > "standard library," with all that implies. It just means "it came with > the first thing that I installed" (or alternatively, "at no additional > charge"). I think that for

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

> If urllib is removed, I would very much like to preserve at least the functionality of urlparse /somewhere/. Given every alternative library to urllib relies on urllib.parse (and some rely on urllib.request), as well as popular libraries like pip, in this hypothetical it would definitely need

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

"Coyot Linden (Glenn Glazer)" writes: > P.S. There are uses for urllib outside of standard web programming. I > recently needed to handle strings in query parameter format > (`?...&...&...`) and found urllib parse() the easiest way of doing > that even though I wasn't taking them in as a

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

I think to most people "batteries included" doesn't necessarily mean "standard library," with all that implies. It just means "it came with the first thing that I installed" (or alternatively, "at no additional charge"). Given there are *plenty* of existing distros out there that install more

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

On 28. 03. 22 17:34, Skip Montanaro wrote: Barry writes (in part): We could still distribute “sumo” releases which include all the batteries, but develop and maintain them outside the cpython repo, and even release them separately on PyPI. It’s *possible* but I don’t know if it’s *practical*.

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 3:08 AM Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote: ... exactly - let's say someone needs to write some JSON for the first time. With the json package included, all they need to do is `import json`. If that wasn't there,

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

Barry writes (in part): > We could still distribute “sumo” releases which include all the > batteries, but develop and maintain them outside the cpython repo, > and even release them separately on PyPI. It’s *possible* but I > don’t know if it’s *practical*. to which Stephen responds (in part):

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

Barry Warsaw writes: > While I don’t underestimate the work and complexity, we can do > both. I.e. separate the stdlib development cycle from the > interpreter (for all but a handful of required packages perhaps). > We could still distribute “sumo” releases which include all the >

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

On Mar 27, 2022, at 11:52, Dan Stromberg wrote: > > It might make sense to have CPython's release cadence decoupled from the > Standard Library's release cadence. That is, maybe they should be separate > downloads. While I don’t underestimate the work and complexity, we can do both. I.e.

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

> On the other hand, it's nice to get it all in one go. Perhaps the > installer could gain controls to download optional parts of the > standard library or update those parts that have been installed. I'm not sure the proposed is really a standard library if it's distributed like that. If a

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

On 2022-03-27 19:52, Dan Stromberg wrote: On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 5:58 PM Ethan Furman > wrote: [apologies for the late post, just found this in my drafts folder] On 2/7/22 12:49 AM, Stéfane Fermigier wrote: > 3. Overall, I think the days where

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 5:58 PM Ethan Furman wrote: > [apologies for the late post, just found this in my drafts folder] > > On 2/7/22 12:49 AM, Stéfane Fermigier wrote: > > > 3. Overall, I think the days where "battery included" was a positive > argument are over > > I strongly disagree. Being

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

Time for a __legacy__ package? Kind regards, Steve On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 7:06 PM Paul Moore wrote: > On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 at 17:11, Christopher Barker > wrote: > > > > With the json package included, all they need to do is `import json`. If > that wasn't there, they's look in PyPi for a

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 at 17:11, Christopher Barker wrote: > > With the json package included, all they need to do is `import json`. If that > wasn't there, they's look in PyPi for a JSON implementation, and find an > absolutely astonishing number of options. I just did a search for "JSON" > on

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

> Back to the topic at hand, rather than remove urllib, maybe it could > be made better -- an as-easy-to-use-as-requests package in the stdlib > would be really great. Agreed. I think one thing that's easy to forget is that Python is useful not just for very large applications but also for your

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 3:08 AM Paul Moore wrote: > > > 3. Overall, I think the days where "battery included" was a positive > argument are over > > > > I strongly disagree. Being able to download something and immediately > get something to work and see results is hugely > > rewarding; on the

[Python-Dev] Re: Are "Batteries Included" still a Good Thing? [was: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 at 00:52, Ethan Furman wrote: > > [apologies for the late post, just found this in my drafts folder] > > On 2/7/22 12:49 AM, Stéfane Fermigier wrote: > > > 3. Overall, I think the days where "battery included" was a positive > > argument are over > > I strongly disagree.