On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm inclined towards the fancy naming option. Ditching the most commonly > used module in the standard library doesn't seem like progress to me. The > thing that seems to bug people is choosing between urllib and urllib2 without > knowing how they differ.
The question is whether most of urllib's usage is simple and through urlopen(), in which case most code can just use urllib2's implementation seamlessly. In which case urllib is just code that is unneeded and taking up developer cycles to maintain. Plus having it removed from the stdlib does not mean it won't still be available. Anything removed from the stdlib can easily be made as an external download that is 3.0 compatible that people can drop in to use until they have time to transition over to what is now urllib2. If urllib doesn't go between 2.x and 3.0 I will push to have it deprecated at some point in 3.x life cycle. I would rather have the module made an external download at transition time instead of having to continue to maintain it in both 2.x and 3.x for any great length of time. But since I don't have answers to everything I am asking here. =) -Brett _______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG@python.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
