[Python-Dev] pysqlite for 2.5?

[Thomas Wouters]

On 3/29/06, Phillip J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:

> Pro:
>

[...]

Con:
>
> * Competing Python wrappers exist
> * SQLite itself is updated frequently, let alone the wrappers
> * Build integration risks unknown, possible delay of 2.5?
> * Another external library to track and maybe have emergency updates of


All of these con arguments go for bsddb, too, and without sounding too
negative about bsddb, I believe SQLite is a *much* better solution than
BerkeleyDB, for roughly the same problem space. The same goes for pysqlite
vs. bsddb. IMNSHO, SQLite and pysqlite are much easier to use correctly than
BerkelyDB and bsddb, for simple and complex tasks. I may be biased against
bsddb because I spent too much time hunting refleaks in it, but I'm not
biased in favour of SQLite -- I'm a PostgreSQL user myself. ;-P

I personally lean somewhat toward the con side because to me it's just as
> easy to "easy_install pysqlite" after the fact, or get it from the
> appropriate packager (RPM, Debian, whatever).


Actually, I have no doubt that all the package managers will split the
'bundled' pysqlite (whatever the name will be) in a separate package, just
like it's done for Tkinter and bsddb and most other stdlib modules with
extra dependencies. Nevertheless, adding it to the standard library is
probably a good thing. I would probably choose sqlite instead of
shelve/anydbm/bsddb if it were part of the standard library, even though
it's probably installed on all my machines anyway. I guess it's a psych
thing.

As for people asking about deadlocks, well, I much rather explain about
sqlite deadlocks than about BerkelyDB transactions.

--
Thomas Wouters <thomas at python.org>

Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me
spread!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20060329/cb1624d7/attachment.htm