On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Vernon Cole <vernondc...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Group: > I would like to start a discussion about adding modules to the IronPython > distribution which are not in the C-Python standard library. The idea would > be to include more batteries. (FePy started out to do that, but has not > been seriously updated since IronPython 2.0 came out with a real, genuine > Windows installer.) Good idea, or Bad?
We certainly don't have to restrict ourselves to the same set of batteries as CPython. However, I'd be cautious about adding in too much simply because we don't have a huge pool of committers at the moment. > > I see that adodbapi is still getting about 300 downloads a month, and I > presume that most of them are for IronPython, since it's already included in > pywin32 for CPython users. FePy is getting around 50 downloads a month, > which I guess is mostly to get the dbapi modules. The FePy modules are > lighter in weight than adodbapi, and use genuine .NET system calls, but are > not completely PEP 249 compliant. Adodbapi is compliant, but uses COM to > read the database, so will not run on linux/mono. Should db api and/or other > modules be considered for inclusion? In the case of adodbapi, the lack of Mono support is slightly troubling. It's really too bad that dbapi cannot be mapped onto ADO.NET, but them's the breaks. Another thing to consider is that a working distutils (and something like pip) eliminates a lot of the need to have the batteries included. There's still a bit of work needed to get pip working, but I hope to have that into 2.7 or 2.7.1. - Jeff _______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@lists.ironpython.com http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com
