[Python-Dev] Removing bsddb module from py3k (was Re: [Python-3000] No beta2 tonight)

Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Sat Jul 19 12:22:06 CEST 2008

Josiah Carlson wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Fred Drake <fdrake at acm.org> wrote:
>> On Jul 18, 2008, at 1:45 PM, Josiah Carlson wrote:
>>> It's entirely possible that I know very little about what was being
>>> made available via the bsddb module, but to match the API of what is
>>> included in the documentation (plus the dictionary interface that it
>>> supports) shouldn't be terribly difficult.
>> It's also entirely possible that the API isn't interesting if you don't
>> support existing databases, for many applications.
> I see where the confusion was.  I'm not suggesting that someone write
> a new bsddb module, I'm suggesting that we can provide something
> called, perhaps, on_disk_dictionary, which offers the behavior of
> bsddb, without using bsddb anywhere, or supporting bsddb files.

No, I knew what you were suggesting, I just don't see the point in doing 
it. If an app depends on bsddb specifically, they can either stick with 
the 2.x series, or they can move to 3.0 and download the externally 
maintained pybsddb (modulo any additional licensing checks required by a 
company's contracts department) or they can switch to a simpler 
file-based database format like sqlite3.

I'm not clear on what problem you are attempting to solve with the idea 
of a module with the bsddb API but without an actual bsddb backend.


Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list