Author lericson
Recipients amaury.forgeotdarc, asksol, brian.curtin, elprans, exarkun, flub, giampaolo.rodola, iElectric, lericson, loewis, marcelo_fernandez, piro, serverhorror
Date 2010-09-29.16:02:47
SpamBayes Score 1.11022e-16
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1285776173.35.0.661943320384.issue5672@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
I use the setproctitle module extensively. It has worked flawlessly.

What would be needed for this to get accepted? I realize one shouldn't stress such a decision, but still I feel this is something the standard library should be able to do.

My justification for inclusion into the standard library is that one has to make a workaround on systems where setproctitle ISN'T installed (I don't feel such a small component should be a requirement for production use.)

Everywhere I use setproctitle, I have to go:

    try:
        from setproctitle import setproctitle
    except ImportError:
        setproctitle = lambda t: None

Which is not only rather lengthy, but also IMO entirely unnecessary. As I noted, setting the process title is mostly for convenience and aesthetics, and therefore it's hard to justify the dependency. For that reason I think standard library inclusion is more relevant than otherwise.

So, are there any other reasons to wait with this other than the need of a PEP and proposing that to python-dev or whatever forum is best suited?
History
Date User Action Args
2010-09-29 16:02:53lericsonsetrecipients: + lericson, loewis, exarkun, amaury.forgeotdarc, giampaolo.rodola, flub, piro, serverhorror, iElectric, marcelo_fernandez, elprans, brian.curtin, asksol
2010-09-29 16:02:53lericsonsetmessageid: <1285776173.35.0.661943320384.issue5672@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2010-09-29 16:02:48lericsonlinkissue5672 messages
2010-09-29 16:02:47lericsoncreate