[HACKERS]
_ Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/direct/01/
[HACKERS]
_ Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/
Re: [HACKERS] Confusion over Python drivers {license}
> Well, all else being equal we'd certainly prefer a library that was > licensed more like the core Postgres database. However, we don't have > infinite resources, and an LGPL license is not a showstopper (at least > not to the people who seem to be willing to work on this problem). > The attractiveness of the license has to be balanced against how much > work we'd have to put in and how long it will take to get results. > > Not being a python user myself, I wasn't paying all that close attention > to the discussion, but that's my sense of how the decision went. > > If you feel that a BSD/MIT license is a must-have for your purposes, > you're certainly free to push development of one of the other driver > projects instead, and to try to organize some other people to help. > I don't believe anyone is trying to funnel all development effort into > psycopg2. Thanks for the reply. I guess that's good advice; I suppose I should just do that and talk to some of the teams about it. It would probably help a lot to focus on just one implementation instead of several, even if it's not the same one as what the PostgreSQL team works on. :) _ Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/
Re: [HACKERS] Confusion over Python drivers {license}
I hope people don't mind my asking about this on the list... as I hinted at before, I don't really follow the development of PostgreSQL, I was just interested in the Python driver project that I heard about. Anyways, as I understand it, the current goal is to use psycopg and get it changed to LGPL (assuming all the contributors of psycopg agree and confirm they did not use GPL code from any other location). Is this correct? When I first heard about the endeavor, I thought the goal was to take one or several of the non-copyleft projects, which were rather unfocused, and work with those teams to produce a really good implementation for Python. However, as I understand it (based on what Greg told me) the license is not really an issue as long as it is not GPL; instead, the PostgreSQL team would mostly prefer something that is nearly done, so as to have to do much more work. Is this a correct assessment? Based on that, I guess my question is what would it have taken to have picked one of BSD/MIT projects and working with those people instead? In other words, what key things affected the decision for psycopg? What areas is it so far ahead in or that would have just been too much work to fix in the other implementations? Anyways, I hope this message doesn't come across as bad form. It's unfortunate for me that there was not a good enough BSD/MIT project; but I can live without right? :) Still, I just thought I might ask and find out a little more about what the team was looking for in a PostgreSQL implementation, and maybe do a little research myself (to see if anything was missed). _ Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469228/direct/01/
[HACKERS] Confusion over Python drivers
I saw this on reddit and thought I might drop a line. I went through this same issue, trying to find a postgresql driver. Mostly, I had no intention of using psycopg because of its copyleft licensing. (Of course, I don't need to go into why.) Anyways, here's some info that might help on three alternatives: Py-postgresql, PyGreSQL, and PG3000 Py-postgresql is active (but I only see 1 person committing) MIT/BSD style license It uses some some C for speed. It has DB-API and PG-API bindings. Problem: is it Python 3 only! PyGreSQL (looking to not be very active in the last few months) MIT/BSD style license I'm vague on it's features, whether it has C optimizations, or if it is a version limited to Python 3 or 2.x PG8000 is active at the moment MIT/BSD style license It works on 2.x and Python 3 Problem: it is pure Python, so it is slower If you plan on pursuing this, I'd recommend talking to people on on 3 projects. Here's what I would describe as ideal in a project: * MIT/BSD style license * works on Python 2.x and 3 * C optimizations for speed (or whatever for speed) -- That's that part. Now for some problems that would need solving in order for the db api to be extremely useful/userfriendly in the Python world: -- * SQLAlchemy bindings/support -- as of right now only psycopyg works in SQLAlchemy without problems. PG8000 will work, but you need an experimental version of boht PG8000 and SQLAlchemy. The other two do not work. SQLAlchemy support is probably most needed of anything. SQLAlchemy support should not only be possible but default. * Django bindings (these are unique to Django and nobody but psycopg has them, which is not good). Django support should not only be possible but default. * Needs 2.x and Python 3 compatability * It is inevitable that if the library uses C optimizations, then that means they need to provide lots of different binaries -- think 32bit vs 64bit and then 2.4, 2.5, 3.0 etc Some combinations will often be left out making it hard for someone to use/install it. Of course all of this is from the perspective of Python users. Of course, you have your own features that you want from your end (from PostgreSQL's perspective). Perhaps this info would help you to know which avenue to pursue. _ Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/direct/01/
