[Python-Dev] PEP 408 -- Standard library __preview__ package

[Barry Warsaw]

On Jan 27, 2012, at 10:48 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:

>On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:10:51 -0500
>Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote:
>> 
>> I'm -1 on this as well.  It just feels like the completely wrong way to
>> stabilize an API, and I think despite the caveats that are explicit in
>> __preview__, Python will just catch tons of grief from users and haters about
>> API instability anyway, because from a practical standpoint, applications
>> written using __preview__ APIs *will* be less stable.
>
>Well, obviously __preview__ is not for the most conservative users. I
>think the name clearly conveys the idea that you are trying out
>something which is not in its definitive state, doesn't it?

Maybe.  I could quibble about the name, but let's not bikeshed on that
right now.  The problem as I see it is that __preview__ will be very tempting
to use in production.  In fact, its use case is almost predicated on that.
(We want you to use it so you can tell us if the API is good.)

Once people use it, they will probably ship code that relies on it, and then
the pressure will be applied to us to continue to support that API even if a
newer, better one gets promoted out of __preview__.  I worry that over time,
for all practical purposes, there won't be much difference between __preview__
and the stdlib.

>> >I think a significantly healthier process (in terms of maximizing feedback
>> >and getting something into it's best shape) is to let a project evolve
>> >naturally on PyPi and in the ecosystem, give feedback to it from an inclusion
>> >perspective, and then include it when it becomes ready on it's own
>> >merits. The counter argument to this is that putting it in the stdlib gets
>> >you signficantly more eyeballs (and hopefully more feedback, therefore), my
>> >only response to this is: if it doesn't get eyeballs on PyPi I don't think
>> >there's a great enough need to justify it in the stdlib.
>> 
>> I agree with everything Alex said here.
>
>The idea that being on PyPI is sufficient is nice but flawed (the
>IPaddr example). PyPI doesn't guarantee any visibility (how many
>packages are there?). Furthermore, having users is not a guarantee that
>the API is appropriate, either; it just means that the API is
>appropriate for *some* users.

I can't argue with that, it's just that I don't think __preview__ solves that
problem.  And it seems to me that __preview__ introduces a whole 'nother set
of problems on top of that.

So taking the IPaddr example further.  Would having it in the stdlib,
relegated to an explicitly unstable API part of the stdlib, increase eyeballs
enough to generate the kind of API feedback we're looking for, without
imposing an additional maintenance burden on us?  If you were writing an app
that used something in __preview__, how would you provide feedback on what
parts of the API you'd want to change, *and* how would you adapt your
application to use those better APIs once they became available 18 months from
now?  I think we'll just see folks using the unstable APIs and then
complaining when we remove them, even though they *know* *upfront* that these
APIs will go away.

I'm also nervous about it from an OS vender point of view.  Should I reject
any applications that import from __preview__?  Or do I have to make a
commitment to support those APIs longer than Python does because the
application that uses it is important to me?

I think the OS vendor problem is easier with an application that uses some
PyPI package, because I can always make that package available to the
application by pulling in the version I care about.  It's harder if a newer,
incompatible version is released upstream and I want to provide both, but I
don't think __preview__ addresses that.  A robust, standard approach to
versioning of modules would though, and I think would better solve what
__preview__ is trying to solve.

>On the other hand, __preview__ would clearly signal that something is
>on the verge of being frozen as an official stdlib API, and would
>prompt people to actively try it.

I'm not so sure about that.  If I were to actively try it, I'm not sure how
much motivation I'd have to rewrite key parts of my code when an incompatible
version gets promoted to the un__preview__d stdlib.

-Barry