[XML-SIG] Python package name

[Fred L. Drake, Jr.]

Martin v. Loewis writes:
 > Guido, Fred, and Andrew think it is better to rename the module to
 > avoid hackery. Lars is also in favour of renaming the package.

  Ahem.  No.  I'm in favor of calling it "xml" in the core and fixing
Python's import machinery to allow multiple directories to provide
components of the package.  I think the hackery with overriding the
xml package with the _xmlplus package is "good enough" until we have a
better import mechanism.

 > Greg is also in favour of a single package xml, but doesn't like PyXML
 > completely superceding the standard one; he had the _xmlextra patch
 > for that (I also had a similar patch, playing with __path__). That
 > would allow to merge the two trees, and require less effort to
 > synchronize them.

  And the reason we originally came up with the idea of _xmlplus
overriding xml was that you get one or the other to avoiding internal
versioning issues.

 > There was also the position of dropping the xml package from Python 2
 > altogether, but I can't attribute this position to anybody right now :-)

  I think this was largely a matter of frustration with the
back-and-forth from the SIG and the lack of any real concensus.  I
understand this, and consider this the only serious option to
providing the xml package in the core and allowing PyXML to override
it.  This would have the advantage that there would no longer be an
issue of synchronizing the releases.

Paul Prescod writes:
 > If the xmlplus hack works (really works, without subtle side effects) then
 > I would prefer that.

  What do you mean by "works"?  That there be a version of PyXML that
properly overrides a core xml package without breaking any code?  I
think that's quite achievable, but we need to wrap up the basic
packages up fairly quickly (Python 2.0b2 is scheduled for next
Tuesday, and we plan to make the deadline!).


  -Fred

-- 
Fred L. Drake, Jr.  <fdrake at beopen.com>
BeOpen PythonLabs Team Member