On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 03:35:48PM +0200, Gerhard H?ring wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 19:47 +1100, Anthony Baxter wrote:
My only concern about this is that it wouldn't be possible for other authors to provide 3rd party packages as (for instance) db.mysqldb because of the way package importing works. And I'd prefer 'database.sqlite' rather than 'db.sqlite'.
+1 on 'database' as the top-level package name.
I think short names are more more consistent with the existing naming in the standard library.
+1 on db.sqlite from me.
db.sql.sqlite is another possibility, if adding something like Durus or ZODB in the same top-level namespace could be considered for 2.6.
two letter names seem short but database is a long word. long words make me thing of java. so i like 'db' ;) +1 on db.sql.sqlite. I was also about to suggest just plain sql.sqlite along the same lines as all of the one people had mentioned so far had really been SQL interfaces rather than general databases. With the bsddb module a common thing for code to do is "from bsddb import db" to have easy to type access to the full bsddb.db.DB object interface. that interface could migrate to live under db.berkeleydb or db.bsddb at some future point in time. -greg