Choosing one of two options for url* in the stdlib reorg
[BCC'ing stdlib-sig and web-sig so that both vote but that I don't have to clear a bunch of replies in the stdlib-sig mailing list from people not on both lists =) ]
With PyCon approaching and having other stuff on my plate to deal with I want to try to reach a consensus on the whole urllib/urllib2/urlparse situation for the stdlib reorg in Python 3.0 and get it settled.
So, two options for people to show support for. One is to keep everything and get cute with the naming::
urlparse -> url.parse urllib -> url.fetch urllib2 -> url.request
The second option is to ditch urllib, move the handy quoting tools into either their own module or into what is currently urllib2::
urlparse -> url.parse urllib -> GONE urllib's utility functions -> url.quote urllib2 -> url.request
So, if you have an opinion please speak up!
-Brett
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Brett Cannon brett@python.org wrote:
So, two options for people to show support for. One is to keep everything and get cute with the naming::
urlparse -> url.parse urllib -> url.fetch urllib2 -> url.request
The second option is to ditch urllib, move the handy quoting tools into either their own module or into what is currently urllib2::
urlparse -> url.parse urllib -> GONE urllib's utility functions -> url.quote urllib2 -> url.request
+1 for the second option. I'd also be happy if there were fewer than 3 modules in the package, but mainly I'd like to see urllib gone with urllib2 in its place.
Steve
On Feb 28, 2008, at 10:23 PM, Steven Bethard wrote:
urlparse -> url.parse urllib -> GONE urllib's utility functions -> url.quote urllib2 -> url.request
+1 for the second option. I'd also be happy if there were fewer than 3 modules in the package, but mainly I'd like to see urllib gone with urllib2 in its place.
Agreed.
As far asl urllib's useful utility functions, they're all about quoting and unquoting, which is related to parsing. I'd be happy to see them in url.parse; the current urlparse contains both parsing and re-assembly functions, and I think it reasonable for the quote- handling functions to co-habit with those.
-Fred
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 4:23 AM, Steven Bethard steven.bethard@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Brett Cannon brett@python.org wrote:
So, two options for people to show support for. One is to keep everything and get cute with the naming::
urlparse -> url.parse urllib -> url.fetch urllib2 -> url.request
The second option is to ditch urllib, move the handy quoting tools into either their own module or into what is currently urllib2::
urlparse -> url.parse urllib -> GONE urllib's utility functions -> url.quote urllib2 -> url.request
+1 for the second option. I'd also be happy if there were fewer than 3 modules in the package, but mainly I'd like to see urllib gone with urllib2 in its place.
Agreed, +1 for ditching urllib.
Quentin
On 29 Feb, 2008, at 9:35, Quentin Gallet-Gilles wrote:
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 4:23 AM, Steven Bethard <steven.bethard@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Brett Cannon brett@python.org wrote:
So, two options for people to show support for. One is to keep everything and get cute with the naming::
urlparse -> url.parse urllib -> url.fetch urllib2 -> url.request
The second option is to ditch urllib, move the handy quoting tools into either their own module or into what is currently urllib2::
urlparse -> url.parse urllib -> GONE urllib's utility functions -> url.quote urllib2 -> url.request
+1 for the second option. I'd also be happy if there were fewer than 3 modules in the package, but mainly I'd like to see urllib gone with urllib2 in its place.
Agreed, +1 for ditching urllib.
The same here. It would be odd to reorganize the stdlib and then keep two confusingly simular modules.
Ronald
participants (5)
-
Brett Cannon -
Fred Drake -
Quentin Gallet-Gilles -
Ronald Oussoren -
Steven Bethard