[stdlib-sig] Choosing a name for simplejson

Brett Cannon brett at python.org
Thu Apr 10 23:52:10 CEST 2008

On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 2:31 PM, M.-A. Lemburg <mal at egenix.com> wrote:
> On 2008-04-10 23:09, Paul Moore wrote:
>  > On 10/04/2008, Benjamin Peterson <musiccomposition at gmail.com> wrote:
>  >> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
>  >>  > So simplejson is going to be added to the stdlib (this came down from
>  >>  >  up high, which is why there has not been more of a discussion here).
>  >>  >  That means we need to choose a name. Obviously 'json' would work, but
>  >>  >  I am not sure if there is something better. Remember, we want simple
>  >>  >  so that if someone goes, "I wonder if Python has a JSON module", they
>  >>  >  can easily find it (which means no crazy package names).
>  >>
>  >> +1 for "json" or "jsonlib". Simple is better.
>  >
>  > +1 for json. Let's not have yet another xxxlib format name...
>  While that would be nice, I'm sure there a quite a few apps out there
>  that already ship their own little version of a JSON library using
>  that name. "jsonlib" already has an implementation:
>  http://pypi.python.org/pypi/jsonlib/
>  BTW: What's bad about "simplejson" ?

Longer than it needs to be.

>  Oh, how I wished Python would finally get to use single package
>  name for its std lib and put everything else under that name, e.g. "py".
>  Then we could just name it "py.json" and be done with these issues
>  once and for all.

If you want to convince Guido to allow this then that's fine; I'm +0
on the idea myself.


More information about the stdlib-sig mailing list