New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Deprecate bsddb for removal in 3.0 #48019
Comments
Attached is a patch that deprecates bsddb for removal in 3.0. |
I also think you need to deprecate the dbhash module. |
Remind me why we want to get rid of bsddb? Skip |
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Skip Montanaro <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
The reasons are enumerated in PEP-3108.
-- |
I thought someone stepped forward to maintain this package. |
New patch to also deprecated dbhash. |
I think this should be deferred to Py3.1. This decision was not widely discussed and I think it likely that some We don't have to take this out. So why do it hastily at the last minute If it were any other release, we would have disciplined ourselves to Also, the stated reason for removal may yet disappear if jcrea steps in Also, the referenced note ( |
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Raymond Hettinger <python@rcn.com> wrote:
Perhaps, but that could be said about almost any module that has been
We don't have to remove anything that has gone through the stdlib
It isn't being done "hastily"; this has been planned for a while.
We are deprecating first in 2.6.
OK, but none of his changes have received a code review, so if we are
Well, it was in the PEP before beta2 even went out the door. -Brett |
Many of those were trivial in comparison and many had good replacements
That, of course, isn't fair since 2.6 is going out the door at the same
If you think everyone got fair warning, knows this is coming, has had a I don't understand the rush to yank out a major component affecting a |
See http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-July/081362.html Guido states his opinion in no uncertain terms regarding pybsddb in "+1. In my recollection maintaining bsddb has been nothing but trouble |
Is there going to be a dbm.* module which is supported across all the core If not, could a dbm.sqlite module be written for 2.7 and 3.1 which can fill Skip |
Since SQLite has a blob type and allows text keys, we should be able to Against, recommend holding-off on removal until 3.1 so we can bake in a |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Brett Cannon wrote:
I was wondering if somebody could write a "TO DO" list of things need to Yes, we are all very busy guys, but still... Jesus Cea Avion _// _/// _/// iQCVAwUBSL/kPZlgi5GaxT1NAQLu4AP/VSHPYOCQgQYFJsdi2MWXBpyY7TyC5XgT |
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
I don't use Python for database work myself, but something I am somewhat While that will still be visible to some degree due to the presence of Regardless, given that the removal of bsddb from the 3.0 branch is now a There's also a bit of a second shot at this for bsddb supporters, in As far as the corporate scenarios go: if a corporate environment is *so* Cheers, |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Nick Coghlan wrote:
Since 2.6 intention seems to mark this module as deprecated, I guess 2.x If the idea is to keep bsddb alive in 2.x, I don't see the point of not (I would like a comprehensive list, to be able to improve those In fact, if we keep bsddb in 2.x, the pressure to keep it in 3.x will be
Any version control system can revert that with a single command :). All I can say is that current bsddb code (in my personal repository)
The cycles are actually decoupled since I toke over the bsddb The main issue here is 3.0 support, that I worked over the last couple So, Python 3.0 is not waiting for bsddb to be ready, because it already That is, future Python releases would take whatever bsddb is available
Agreed. I was thinking about bsddb removal in 2.7. Jesus Cea Avion _// _/// _/// iQCVAwUBSMAEnplgi5GaxT1NAQIrKgP/YAp45HUSG8Q+M355LTVqlcLMLkycpooc |
me> If not, could a dbm.sqlite module be written for 2.7 and 3.1 which http://bugs.python.org/issue3783 S |
This issue is closed but "rejected". Should it be marked as "accepted" |
I accidentally filed this twice, and the code review is on the other |
Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.
Show more details
GitHub fields:
bugs.python.org fields:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: