[DB-SIG] annotated 1.1 spec / feedback

Greg Stein gstein@lyra.org
Wed, 17 Mar 1999 09:59:10 -0800

James Northrup wrote:
> > Hmm. We could try getting the DB API specification into the standard
> > docs for Python. That would add a little more "official" flavor to
> > our work.
> questions regarding this sig:
> 1) Is there an issue in publishing a module of abstract classes to adhere to ?

The DB modules aren't going to be able to subclass from them since the
modules must be implemented in C. Therefore, publishing something like
this doesn't really provide any more information than the specification
that we currently have.

> 2) Why stop at the docs for python if we can publish self documented base classes as well?
> I have looked frantically for a dbapi.py and all I have found are disparate c modules that don't have parent class interfaces.
> If such an animal exists, I would love a pointer.  I would gladly step out of this discussion and into one about improving such a module.

There is no such beast. The C modules can't have a parent class
interface (without undue strain, and with little benefit). This is
simply the way Python works.

> 3) Java has a comfortable "Interface/Impl" flavor of libraries, why is the db-api an ethereal specification of convention rather than an entry point in code interface?

Goody for Java.

Python doesn't have strict interface mechanisms, so that programming
methodology does not apply. Publishing a specification for people to
conform to seems to work. There are people that do not conform to the
spec; however, have a base class would not improve the situation... they
just wouldn't use it if they didn't want to conform.


Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/