[Web-SIG] Removal of Cookie in Python 3.0 OK?
ianb at colorstudy.com
Mon Feb 4 20:39:57 CET 2008
Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2008 3:41 PM, Ian Bicking <ianb at colorstudy.com> wrote:
>> Brett Cannon wrote:
>>> As part of the standard library cleanup for Python 3.0, it has been
>>> suggested to me that the Cookie module be removed. The rationale for
>>> this is that most of the module is already deprecated and cookielib
>>> does a better job for cookie support anyway.
>>> I just wanted to see if anyone here had strong objections (along with
>>> reasons) as to why the module should be kept around in some form or
>> I think most frameworks still use the Cookie module. The cookielib
>> module is more oriented to the client side. It doesn't seem to have the
>> same parsing functions that you'd use on the server side (though maybe
>> they are there and just not documented because they also exist in the
>> Cookie module).
> I honestly don't know. This was just something that someone proposed
> and I figured I would quickly look into, especially since I am trying
> to create a single http.cookies module. But if both modules stick
> around that might not work out very well having BaseCookie,
> SimpleCookie, and Cookie all in the same module but doing very
> different things.
I'd actually would prefer simple parsing functions instead of the
objects of the Cookie module. And the only thing I really like in the
cookie module is BaseCookie; the other classes try to be clever and just
manage to be distracting or annoying.
If as Jim suggests the existing Cookie module was made into an
installable package we could have backward compatibility in addition to
a cleaner stdlib going forward. (Or we could leave cookies out of the
stdlib, but this particular functionality doesn't bother me since it's
fairly clear, at least now, how it should be implemented.)
More information about the Web-SIG