John Salerno wrote: > I was just thinking, since Python 3.0 is supposed to clean up a lot of > the unnecessary or redundant features of Python and make other things > more streamlined, does it seem to anyone that including SQLite goes > against this goal? > > This is just me thinking out loud, mind you, but it seems like including > a database module (especially one that many people won't use in favor > of MySQL or PostgreSQL, etc.) is weighing down the standard library. I > suppose the sqlite module might still be removed in 3.0, but the > inclusion of it at all seems a little strange (and also sort of like an > endorsement for using it). > > I can see how it would be helpful to include something like hashlib, for > example, because it streamlines the different hashing modules, and even > ElementTree, which might be seen as the standard way to work with XML. > > Anyway, I'd be curious to hear other people's thoughts about this. Maybe > I'm looking at it the wrong way.
I was very pleased to learn that pysqlite will be incorporated into Python 2.5. Here's why. I am developing a business/accounting app. As I am targeting the mid-range, it must be inherently robust and scalable. Therefore I have restricted the databases supported to two - PostgreSQL on Linux, and MS Sql Server on Windows. (Yes I know that PostgreSQL works on Windows, but I figure that if a company has a policy of using MS products, that will include the database, and if not, a Linux server is a better option.) The downside is that there is quite a bit of setting up to do before you can use it, and that is likely to be a deterrent for someone who just wants to try it out. With pysqlite incorporated, I can knock up a demo version that uses it, and it will work straight out of the box. This is a major benefit. I have not started looking into it yet, but it is definitely on my to-do list. Frank Millman -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list