[Python-Dev] Re: GadflyDA in core? Or as add-on-product?

[Richard Jones]

On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 12:40 pm, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> No PEP is needed, but I'd like to understand more of the mechanics of
> adding this to the distribution.  I've got no problem with adding more
> Python code to the standard library, but (as Brett mentioned) I'd like
> to keep the kjbuckets C code out unless we have a volunteer to both
> clean it up and maintain it.

The C code will go away soon, thanks to Anthony's efforts in the kjbuckets 
python module (the conversion to the new sets implementation, amongst other 
enhacements).


> Also, I just looked at the copy of gadfly that's part of Zope, and it
> is about 15,000 lines! (And that's only Python code -- no C code
> included, nor docs.)  Do we really need all that?

The cleaned up version in the sourceforge project is 11k. We may be able to 
remove the 1.2kloc parser builder.


>  Who is going to maintain it?

I have no answer for this. The sourceforge project has a number of 
maintainers, but there are old outstanding bugs which have had no attention 
(some even have patches). I'm afraid it's at the bottom of my priority list 
at present.


> Is somebody going to convert the gadfly docs (assuming
> they exist) into LaTeX?

I converted them to ReST as part of my cleanup, so a docutils writer which 
writes the python doc LaTeX format _should_ be possible (it'd be a 
nice-to-have for Python documentation regardless :)


> Or is it just going to be an undocumented
> pile of code that only people who happen to already know how to use it
> can really use?

It is documented already. Stuart is looking at implemeting the DB-API 2.0 
interface for it, so the doc will need updating at that point. That's not a 
mammoth task though.


   Richard