Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Guido van Rossum wrote:
Unless you've recanted on that already, let me point out that I've never seen sqlite, and I've ignored this thread, so I don't know what the disagreement is all about. Perhaps one person in favor and one person against could summarize the argument for me? Otherwise I'll have to go with "no" just to err on the side of safety. I have strong feelings about the language. Sometimes I have strong feelings about the library. This doesn't seem to be one of those cases though...
Let me try to take both sides simultaneously:
For: would add an SQL library to the standard distribution, and one that doesn't depend on additional infrastructure on the target machine (such as an existing database server); the author of that library is fine with including it in Python
Against: Adds work-load on the release process, adding more libraries to the already-large list of new libraries for 2.5. Choice of naming things is ad-hoc, but gets cast in stone by the release; likewise, choice of specific SQL library might inhibit addition of different libraries later.
More Against?: Explaining "database is locked" errors (due to SQLite's exposed multiple-readers/one-writer design) on a daily basis (FAQ entries notwithstanding). Robert Brewer System Architect Amor Ministries fumanchu@amor.org
participants (2)
-
Fredrik Lundh
-
Robert Brewer