There must be something about the way I write my comments that may be making them sound worst than I want. I have _no_ intention to start a flame war... and I really would like to make it sound constructive. I apologize if it sounded otherwise. (I have a few comments that still belong here, if only to clarify things)
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 10:54:34 +0200, M.-A. Lemburg email@example.com wrote:
Note that there is no need to "settle things": the DB-API spec has been around for many years, is very stable, widely used and still flexible enough to meet requirements of various different database backends.
There are several packages around that don't implement the DB API correctly, or implement a completely different API. This is clearly not a fault of the DB API itself, or of its developers, but it's an issue for its users. It's a difficult situation, because nobody is really in a position to enforce compliance. In this sense, bringing the issue to the standard library _could_ be helpful. One suggestion is to have a reference implementation -- for example, a simple DB API module, or a library that makes use of DB-API compliant modules. Of course, it's open to discussion whether this is feasible or not; for now it's only a personal opinion.
If you feel that a certain feature is missing, I'd suggest you direct your constructive criticism to the firstname.lastname@example.org.
I think the DB API itself is fine. What is lacking is some way to make sure that everyone _comply_ to it. If that's can be done within the DB-SIG group alone, fine.