[Web-SIG] [stdlib-sig] Choosing one of two options for url* in the stdlib reorg
mal at egenix.com
Sat Mar 1 13:34:52 CET 2008
On 2008-03-01 05:06, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Seriously, I just don't want to support two different approaches to
> the same problem.
Then what makes you believe that the urllib2 approach is the
better one ?
Why not move urllib2 to PyPI and keep urllib ?
>> It's not really an argument for dropping the more used module in
>> favor of a different module without any real benefit.
> Benefit to old users, no. Benefit to the developers, definitely.
> Benefit to new users, yes as there will be less to deal with.
Same question as above.
>> You have to ask yourself whether
>> it's ok to ask the maintainers of those ~1000 code modules
>> using urllib for subclassing from the two main classes
>> URLopener and FancyURLopener to download an external dependency
>> from PyPI or ship the module with their code.
> Well, I obviously think it is.
Please explain. I have yet to see a single comment explaining why
urllib2 would be the better choice - if there's really a need to
decide (which I don't think there really is).
If you can put up some sound arguments for why urllib2 is better
than urllib, we could move the discussion forward. If not, then
I don't really see any benefit in having the discussion at all.
Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Mar 01 2008)
>>> Python/Zope Consulting and Support ... http://www.egenix.com/
>>> mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ... http://zope.egenix.com/
>>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ... http://python.egenix.com/
:::: Try mxODBC.Zope.DA for Windows,Linux,Solaris,MacOSX for free ! ::::
eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48
D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg
Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611
More information about the Web-SIG