Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb tests disabled by default

Brett> Well, it has always been that way for me, so I always assumed Brett> test_bsddb3 was just a *really* long test. Slow for me, but not nearly as bad as for you: % time ./python.exe ../Lib/bsddb/test/test_all.py -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb tests disabled by default

> Only thing I can think of is that Berkeley DB 4.7 is a ton faster than > 4.6 or I am running something differently than you: My suspicion is that there is a bug somewhere, probably in Berkeley DB. For example, it might acquire some lock with a timeout, hoping that normally, the lock gets release

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb tests disabled by default

> real0m13.786s test_bsddb3 takes about 30s real time on my system (Linux, with Berkeley DB 4.6.21). I don't think the default (of requiring the bsddb resource) can change for 2.6; we already have released rc2, so there won't be any further release candidates. For 2.7, I would still be hesit

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb tests disabled by default

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 8:36 PM, Jesus Cea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Brett Cannon wrote: >> Well, 'time' says the test takes 16.09 sec user and 16.09 sec system >> on my MacBook, but a total execution time of almost 8 *minutes*. That >> is too

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb tests disabled by default

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Brett Cannon wrote: > Well, 'time' says the test takes 16.09 sec user and 16.09 sec system > on my MacBook, but a total execution time of almost 8 *minutes*. That > is too long to be on by default. Uh... That is very strange. Under Solaris 10: "

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb tests disabled by default

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Jesus Cea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Just installing 2.6rc2, I see that bsddb3 testsuite is disabled by default. > > Current testsuite is far more fast and stable that the old one (entire > test: 17 seconds in my

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb tests disabled by default

On Sep 18, 2008, at 10:24 AM, Jesus Cea wrote: Current testsuite is far more fast and stable that the old one (entire test: 17 seconds in my machine). I was wondering if it is time to enable bsddb3 testsuite by default. Perhaps so. That certainly improves the chances of finding problems e

[Python-Dev] bsddb tests disabled by default

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Just installing 2.6rc2, I see that bsddb3 testsuite is disabled by default. Current testsuite is far more fast and stable that the old one (entire test: 17 seconds in my machine). I was wondering if it is time to enable bsddb3 testsuite by default. B

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb

On Sep 7, 2008, at 12:04 PM, Gregory P. Smith wrote: FWIW, many years ago in the past when I asked sleepycat about this (long before oracle bought them) they said that python was considered to be the application. Using berkeleydb via python for a commercial application did not require a berkele

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb alternative (was Re: [issue3769] Deprecate bsddb for removal in 3.0)

> I thought that all that was happening was that BSDDB was becoming a > separate project. If one needs BSDDB with Python2.6, one installs it. No, not in the way you mean it. > Aren't there other parts of Python that require external modules, such as > Tk? It's different. BSDDB (the Sleepycat-th

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb and sqlite

>> Unfortunately this advice should have been taken several years >> ago. The fact is that there are almost certainly Python users who >> rely on the presence of the bsddb module for production work, and >> simply removing it without deprecation is bound to upset those users. G

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb and sqlite

On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oleg Broytmann wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 11:34:37AM -0700, Gregory P. Smith wrote: >>> You could probably have built the bsddb185 module and loaded your data >>> from that and rewritten it using the new bsddb module.

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb and sqlite

Oleg Broytmann wrote: > On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 11:34:37AM -0700, Gregory P. Smith wrote: >> You could probably have built the bsddb185 module and loaded your data >> from that and rewritten it using the new bsddb module. > >I built bsddb185, loaded old data, exported it to... I don't remember

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb and sqlite

On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 11:34:37AM -0700, Gregory P. Smith wrote: > You could probably have built the bsddb185 module and loaded your data > from that and rewritten it using the new bsddb module. I built bsddb185, loaded old data, exported it to... I don't remember now, but I clearly remember I

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb

On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Oleg Broytmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 07:40:28PM +0200, Jesus Cea wrote: >> A stable fileformat is useful for long term support, but an evolving >> format allows improvements. > > Once I upgraded Python on a Windows computer... I thin

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb

On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 7:33 AM, Oleg Broytmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 03:23:22PM +0200, Jesus Cea wrote: >> Compared to sqlite, you don't need to know SQL, you can finetuning (for >> example, using ACI instead of ACID, deciding store by store), and you >> can do replic

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb

Curt Hagenlocher wrote: > On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 7:33 AM, Oleg Broytmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> SQLite is public domain; the licensing terms of Berkeley DB[1] are not >> friendly to commercial applications: "Our open source license ... >> permits use of Berkeley DB in open source projects or

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb alternative (was Re: [issue3769] Deprecate bsddb for removal in 3.0)

Kevin Teague wrote: There can be subtle differences between a "stock" Python and the system Python on Mac OS X 10.5. Also there can be different versions of Python installed in different versions of MacOSX. So if you distribute an app that relies on the system Python, at the least you have to

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb alternative (was Re: [issue3769] Deprecate bsddb for removal in 3.0)

-On [20080905 12:34], Kevin Teague ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >However, all does not seem to be right with the bsddb module on the >system Python 2.5 on Mac OS X 10.5: > > >>> import bsddb [snip] >ImportError: No module named _bsddb The bsddb module is built separately from Python within FreeBSD

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb alternative (was Re: [issue3769] Deprecate bsddb for removal in 3.0)

On Sep 4, 2008, at 8:10 AM, C. Titus Brown wrote: I have to say I've never had problems with a stock install of Python on either Mac OS X or Windows (shockingly enough :). I think this is good advice for applications that rely on external libraries, but I just don't see any problems with

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb alternative (was Re: [issue3769] Deprecate bsddb for removal in 3.0)

-On [20080904 16:22], C. Titus Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >I agree. I like bsddb for just this reason and I'd like to continue >being able to use it! I think that there are many reasons why having >such a thing in the stdlib is really useful and I also think it's worth >exploring the ramifi

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb alternative (was Re: [issue3769] Deprecate bsddb for removal in 3.0)

On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 5:02 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >me> I suggested in another message (perhaps on another thread) that >me> maybe a dbm.sqlite module would be worth having. > > http://bugs.python.org/issue3783 I did a similar thing today. I can post my version later today. -

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb alternative (was Re: [issue3769] Deprecate bsddb for removal in 3.0)

me> I suggested in another message (perhaps on another thread) that me> maybe a dbm.sqlite module would be worth having. http://bugs.python.org/issue3783 Skip ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/list

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Oleg Broytmann wrote: >Once I upgraded Python on a Windows computer... I think it was 2.2 to > 2.3 upgrade - and all my bsddb databases stopped working. I cannot call > this "improvement". I didn't have db_upgarde on that computer (or I didn't > kn

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb alternative (was Re: [issue3769] Deprecate bsddb for removal in 3.0)

On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 10:03 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Compared to sqlite, you don't need to know SQL, you can finetuning >> (for example, using ACI instead of ACID, deciding store by store), and >> you can do replication and distributed transactions (useful, for >> examp

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb

On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 7:33 AM, Oleg Broytmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > SQLite is public domain; the licensing terms of Berkeley DB[1] are not > friendly to commercial applications: "Our open source license ... > permits use of Berkeley DB in open source projects or in applications > that are

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb alternative (was Re: [issue3769] Deprecate bsddb for removal in 3.0)

On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 07:01:47PM +0200, Jesus Cea wrote: -> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- -> Hash: SHA1 -> -> C. Titus Brown wrote: -> > Since I/we want to distribute pygr to end-users, this is really not a -> > pleasant prospect. Also often the installation of Python itself goes -> > much

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb alternative (was Re: [issue3769] Deprecate bsddb for removal in 3.0)

On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 09:25:43AM -0700, Bill Janssen wrote: > Yeah, but bsddb is one of those exploding batteries. I've used it for > years, and have had lots and lots of problems with it. Having SQLite > in there is great; now we need implementations of anydbm and shelve > which use it. What

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb

On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 07:40:28PM +0200, Jesus Cea wrote: > A stable fileformat is useful for long term support, but an evolving > format allows improvements. Once I upgraded Python on a Windows computer... I think it was 2.2 to 2.3 upgrade - and all my bsddb databases stopped working. I canno

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Oleg Broytmann wrote: > -- SQLite is public domain; the licensing terms of Berkeley DB[1] are not >friendly to commercial applications: "Our open source license ... >permits use of Berkeley DB in open source projects or in applications >tha

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb alternative (was Re: [issue3769] Deprecate bsddb for removal in 3.0)

never mind about the limit... I was thinking SQL Express On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Jeff Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Doesn't SQLlite still have a 4gb cap? > > I'd personally prefer an open source solution (if that's Berkeley so be it > but there's plenty out there... MySQL for one) > >

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb alternative (was Re: [issue3769] Deprecate bsddb for removal in 3.0)

Doesn't SQLlite still have a 4gb cap? I'd personally prefer an open source solution (if that's Berkeley so be it but there's plenty out there... MySQL for one) ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pyth

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb alternative (was Re: [issue3769] Deprecate bsddb for removal in 3.0)

> Compared to sqlite, you don't need to know SQL, you can finetuning > (for example, using ACI instead of ACID, deciding store by store), and > you can do replication and distributed transactions (useful, for > example, if your storage is bigger than a single machine capacity,

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb alternative (was Re: [issue3769] Deprecate bsddb for removal in 3.0)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 C. Titus Brown wrote: > On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 03:23:22PM +0200, Jesus Cea wrote: > -> Brett Cannon wrote: > -> >> Related but tangential question that we were discussing on the pygr[0] > -> >> mailing list -- what is the "official" word on a scalable

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb alternative (was Re: [issue3769] Deprecate bsddb for removal in 3.0)

> I have to say I've never had problems with a stock install of Python on > either Mac OS X or Windows (shockingly enough :). I think this is good I agree. I just use the stock Python on OS X and Windows. And it seems to work well for my rather large and complicated (PIL, PyLucene, Medusa, Repo

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb alternative (was Re: [issue3769] Deprecate bsddb for removal in 3.0)

> I don't think the convenience of "batteries *included*" should be > underestimated. Yeah, but bsddb is one of those exploding batteries. I've used it for years, and have had lots and lots of problems with it. Having SQLite in there is great; now we need implementations of anydbm and shelve whi

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb alternative (was Re: [issue3769] Deprecate bsddb for removal in 3.0)

On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 11:01:35AM -0400, Tony Nelson wrote: -> At 7:37 AM -0700 9/4/08, C. Titus Brown wrote: -> >On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 10:29:10AM -0400, Tony Nelson wrote: -> ... -> >-> Shipping an application to end users is a different problem. Such packages -> >-> should include a private

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb alternative (was Re: [issue3769] Deprecatebsddb for removal in 3.0)

[C. Titus Brown] I'm happy to be told that bsddb is too much of a maintenance burden for Python 2.6/3.0 to have -- especially since it's gone from 3.0 now ;) -- but I don't think the arguments that *it won't matter that it's not there* have been very credible. Not credible, not widely discuss

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb alternative (was Re: [issue3769] Deprecate bsddb for removal in 3.0)

At 7:37 AM -0700 9/4/08, C. Titus Brown wrote: >On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 10:29:10AM -0400, Tony Nelson wrote: ... >-> Shipping an application to end users is a different problem. Such packages >-> should include a private copy of Python as well as of any dependent >-> libraries, as tested. > >Why?

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb alternative (was Re: [issue3769] Deprecate bsddb for removal in 3.0)

On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 10:29:10AM -0400, Tony Nelson wrote: -> At 6:10 AM -0500 9/4/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -> >>> Related but tangential question that we were discussing on the -> >>> pygr[0] mailing list -- what is the "official" word on a scalable -> >>> object store in Python?

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb

On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 03:23:22PM +0200, Jesus Cea wrote: > Compared to sqlite, you don't need to know SQL, you can finetuning (for > example, using ACI instead of ACID, deciding store by store), and you > can do replication and distributed transactions (useful, for example, if > your storage is b

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb alternative (was Re: [issue3769] Deprecate bsddb for removal in 3.0)

At 6:10 AM -0500 9/4/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> Related but tangential question that we were discussing on the >>> pygr[0] mailing list -- what is the "official" word on a scalable >>> object store in Python? We've been using bsddb, but is there an >>> alternative? And what

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb alternative (was Re: [issue3769] Deprecate bsddb for removal in 3.0)

On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 03:23:22PM +0200, Jesus Cea wrote: -> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- -> Hash: SHA1 -> -> Brett Cannon wrote: -> >> Related but tangential question that we were discussing on the pygr[0] -> >> mailing list -- what is the "official" word on a scalable object store -> >> i

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb alternative (was Re: [issue3769] Deprecate bsddb for removal in 3.0)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Brett Cannon wrote: >> Related but tangential question that we were discussing on the pygr[0] >> mailing list -- what is the "official" word on a scalable object store >> in Python? We've been using bsddb, but is there an alternative? And >> what if

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb alternative (was Re: [issue3769] Deprecate bsddb for removal in 3.0)

>> Related but tangential question that we were discussing on the >> pygr[0] mailing list -- what is the "official" word on a scalable >> object store in Python? We've been using bsddb, but is there an >> alternative? And what if bsddb is removed? Brett> Beyond shelve there

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb alternative (was Re: [issue3769] Deprecate bsddb for removal in 3.0)

On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 7:56 PM, C. Titus Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 04:41:32PM -0700, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > -> I think this should be deferred to Py3.1. > -> > -> This decision was not widely discussed and > -> I think it likely that some users will > -> be surp

[Python-Dev] bsddb alternative (was Re: [issue3769] Deprecate bsddb for removal in 3.0)

On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 04:41:32PM -0700, Raymond Hettinger wrote: -> I think this should be deferred to Py3.1. -> -> This decision was not widely discussed and -> I think it likely that some users will -> be surprised and dismayed. The release -> candidate seems to be the wrong time to -> yank

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb: Test failures on windows (HELP!)

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Mark Hammond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Trent, I was wondering if you could look at some test failures in MS >> Windows builds. I can't debug Windows issues myself :-(. This is a MS >> free environment... > > In these errors I see lots of bsdbd errors, many of t

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb: Test failures on windows (HELP!)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Amaury Forgeot d'Arc wrote: | I see that some tests use os.unlink. They should use | test_support.unlink() instead. Old stuff. Fix just committed. - -- Jesus Cea Avion _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http:/

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb: Test failures on windows (HELP!)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jesus Cea wrote: | Trent, I was wondering if you could look at some test failures in MS | Windows builds. I can't debug Windows issues myself :-(. This is a MS | free environment... I will be out of the city, 100% offline, until monday/tuesday. I wil

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb: Test failures on windows (HELP!)

Tres Seaver wrote: > Mark Hammond wrote: > >>> Trent, I was wondering if you could look at some test failures in MS >>> Windows builds. I can't debug Windows issues myself :-(. This is a MS >>> free environment... >> >> In these errors I see lots of bsdbd errors, many of the form: >> >> | DBFileExi

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb: Test failures on windows (HELP!)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mark Hammond wrote: >> Trent, I was wondering if you could look at some test failures in MS >> Windows builds. I can't debug Windows issues myself :-(. This is a MS >> free environment... > > In these errors I see lots of bsdbd errors, many of the fo

Re: [Python-Dev] bsddb: Test failures on windows (HELP!)

> Trent, I was wondering if you could look at some test failures in MS > Windows builds. I can't debug Windows issues myself :-(. This is a MS > free environment... In these errors I see lots of bsdbd errors, many of the form: | DBFileExistsError: (17, 'File exists -- __fop_file_setup: Retry lim

[Python-Dev] bsddb: Test failures on windows (HELP!)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Trent, I was wondering if you could look at some test failures in MS Windows builds. I can't debug Windows issues myself :-(. This is a MS free environment... Details:

[Python-Dev] bsddb broken

Anyone wanna give bsddb some tlc? Head and 2.4 work with 4.2 on amd64 and x86. Neither python version works when using BSD db 4.1 or 3.2. I don't know anything about bsddb, so any help fixing this would be appreciated. In 4.1 it seems associate doesn't work. http://python.org/sf/1332873 3.2