[stdlib-sig] Any more packaging suggestions? March 15th deadline for ideas!
brett at python.org
Fri Feb 29 03:16:48 CET 2008
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Raymond Hettinger <python at rcn.com> wrote:
> > On the web-sig I am working on how to handle
> > urllib/urllib2/urlparse and Cookie/cookielib.
> Why have a package for cookies? It's not a five
> module monster. In this case, the additional
> mental cost of having a package will more than
> offset the mental savings of having one less
> top level module.
Well, Robert Brewer suggested some reasonable names that would make
the modules end up in the http package, so it's possible that they
won't end up in their own package.
> Some of the cookie stuff is long since deprecated
> or dying from neglect. How about removing the
> deadwood and rolling it into a single module?
> IMO, packages are for organizing large amounts
> of code. That doesn't apply here.
I am happy to merge them into one, but unlike the other proposed
merges, the naming gets funky with both Cookie and cookielib having
similarly named classes but with different interfaces and purposed
(the guys on the web-sig seem to like Cookie's parsing code). And with
both modules being class-heavy there isn't a clear place where one can
say "take these functions and these classes, and put them together".
In other words I would totally support a merging of the two, but
someone is going to have to do the heavy lifting to see it happen.
More information about the stdlib-sig