On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 12:45 AM, Russell Keith-Magee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have to say I agree with Malcolm. I don't believe we are currently > hampered in any real way by bundling an old version of the SimpleJSON > library, and it doesn't take that much effort to update the bundled > version of SimpleJSON when the time comes.
I guess the thing that's bugging me is that this mostly seems to come down to historical inertia; we already have simplejson in Django, and so the perception is that we should continue to bundle it. I think eventually we're going to have to get rid of it since sooner or later we'll be targeting only Python versions which have a json module built in, so we might as well start dealing with it. > On the other hand: at present, the only prerequisite for running the > system test suite is a database backend, and not even that if you're > running Python 2.5 and SQLite. If we stopped packaging SimpleJSON with > Django, a great chunk of the system test suite would no longer work > out of the box. On top of that, no matter obvious we make the error > message, we're going to get "Why doesn't my fixture load" questions on > Django-users. Several large and popular third-party Django apps already make use of non-JSON fixture formats; for example, Satchmo cannot load its fixtures or run its unit tests without PyYAML (and in my experience, YAML is preferred over JSON as a fixture format when it can be used), and yet they don't seem to be crushed under the weight of "I can't load the fixtures" problems. Similarly, ImageField has always required PIL (which is much trickier to install), and yet we don't see corresponding large numbers of questions on this list from people who can't manage to get it working. So I have a hard time believing that this would pose such a large hurdle to use of Django. > IMHO, the suggestions hovering around #9266 and the related mailing > list threads - that users should be able to override the bundled > version of SimpleJSON - have merit, and it looks like Malcolm has a > handle on how to make this approach happen. However, completely > removing SimpleJSON seems like asking for a world of pain, with no > real gain. To me, the gain is no longer bundling and maintaining something that we don't *have* to bundle and maintain. Advertising simplejson (or Python 2.6+) as a dependency for using JSON serialization doesn't, to me, seem to be too onerous a thing to do, and it gets something out of Django (where, arguably, it didn't belong in the first place) and out of our hair. -- "Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct -- the best kind of correct." --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
