Include pysqlite2 into Python 2.5?

Robert sigzero at gmail.com
Fri Oct 22 03:57:19 CEST 2004


Gerhard Haering wrote:
> [This is a repost from a message to python-dev on the users' list,
> because python-dev-ers thought a broader discussion of this is a good
> idea.]
> 
> Last December, we had a short thread discussing (in python-dev) the
> integration of PySQLite into Python 2.4. At the time, I was against
> inclusion, because I thought PySQLite was not ripe for it, mostly
> because I thought the API was not stable.
> 
> Now, I have started writing a new PySQLite module, which has the
> following key features:
> 
> - Uses iterator-style SQLite 3.x API: sqlite3_compile, sqlite3_step()
>   etc. This way, it is possible to use prepared statements, and for
>   large resultsets, it requires less memory, because the whole
>   resultset isn't fetched into memory at once any longer.
> 
> - Completely incompatible with the SQLite 0.x/1.x API: I'm free to
>   create a much better API now.
> 
> - "In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess." -
>   PySQLite 1.x tries to "guess" which Python type to convert to. It's
>   pretty good at it, because it queries the column type information.
>   This works for, I'd say 90 % of all cases at least. But as soon as
>   you use anything fancy like functions, aggregates or expressions in
>   SQL, the _typeless_ nature of SQLite breaks through and it will tell
>   us nothing about the declared column type (of course, because the
>   data is not coming from a database column).
> 
>   So I decided to change the default behaviour and make PySQLite
>   typeless by default, too. Everything will be returned as a Unicode
>   string (the default might be user-configurable per connection).
> 
>   Unless, unless of course the user explicitly activates the
>   "guess-mode" ;-) But to do so, she must read the docs then she will
>   be aware of the fact that it only works in 90 % of all cases.
> 
> So why am I bothering you about this?
> 
> I think that a simple embedded relational database would be a good
> thing to have in Python by default. And as Python 2.5 won't happen
> anytime soon, there's plenty of time for developing it, getting it
> stable, and integrating it.
> 
> Especially those of you that have used PySQLite in the past, do you
> have any suggestions that would make the rewrite a better candidate
> for inclusion into Python?
> 
> One problem I see is that even the new PySQLite will grow and try to
> wrap much of the SQLite API that are not directly related to the
> DB-API. If such a thing is too complicated/big for the standard
> library, then maybe it would be better to produce a much simpler
> PySQLite, especially for the Python standard library that leaves all
> the fancy stuff out. My codename would be "embsql".
> 
> So, what would you like to see? "import sqlite", "import embsql", or
> "pypi.install('pysqlite')" ?
> 
> -- Gerhard
"import sqlite"

Do we really have to wait unitil Python 2.5 to get it?  ;-)

Robert



More information about the Python-list mailing list