Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Python: Dev
Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives
 

Index | Next | Previous | View Flat


guido at python

Mar 13, 2012, 7:52 AM


Views: 358
Permalink
Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives [In reply to]

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Senthil Kumaran <senthil [at] uthcode> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 07:23:11PM -0700, Andrey Petrov wrote:
>> I've had the pleasure of speaking with Guido at PyCon and it became evident
>> that some of Python's included batteries are significantly lagging behind the
>> rapidly-evolving defacto standards of the community specifically in cases like
>> urllib and urllib2, which lack important features provided by alternatives like
>> httplib2, requests, and my own urllib3.
>
> Well, I think I have address this because I am the maintainer of those
> modules in standard lib.
>
> First things first, it looks to me that trashing something gives good
> motivation to you (and others working on related modules). I don't
> have a problem with that.
>
> But on the other hand, if you think things can be improved in stdlib,
> you are welcome to contribute. Just remember that new features,
> refactoring with backwards compatibility, 'cool api' for new features
> should go in 3.3+ onwards. Bug fixes, confusions on what's RFC
> supported vs what's defacto standards, fine line between bugs and
> features, those can be considered for 2.7.
>
> I am personally in favor of constantly improving the standard library
> modules along with mention of any good libraries which can be useful
> for the purposes of the user.
>
> We already have lots of such references in standard library
> documentation. If there is a well maintained package, as long as the
> external package is active and maintained, we can have it as link in
> the docs. Sometimes those external packages become inactive too, in
> those cases, those should pruned. Its' all about maintaining libraries
> and docs and being helpful.

Well said. Improving existing stdlib modules is always welcome of
course! (And the bar is much lower than for adding new modules.)

--
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

Subject User Time
Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives shazow at gmail Mar 12, 2012, 7:23 PM
    Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives rdmurray at bitdance Mar 12, 2012, 8:07 PM
        Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives eliben at gmail Mar 12, 2012, 8:22 PM
    Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives brian at python Mar 12, 2012, 8:58 PM
    Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives shazow at gmail Mar 12, 2012, 9:14 PM
    Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives tjreedy at udel Mar 12, 2012, 9:22 PM
        Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives guido at python Mar 12, 2012, 9:40 PM
    Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives brian at python Mar 12, 2012, 9:23 PM
    Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives guido at python Mar 12, 2012, 9:43 PM
    Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives eliben at gmail Mar 12, 2012, 9:48 PM
    Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives anacrolix at gmail Mar 12, 2012, 10:10 PM
    Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives senthil at uthcode Mar 12, 2012, 10:10 PM
        Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives shazow at gmail Mar 12, 2012, 10:48 PM
        Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives guido at python Mar 13, 2012, 7:52 AM
    Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives senthil at uthcode Mar 12, 2012, 11:12 PM
    Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives donald.stufft at gmail Mar 13, 2012, 6:34 AM
        Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives p.f.moore at gmail Mar 13, 2012, 7:52 AM
    Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives v+python at g Mar 13, 2012, 11:58 AM
    Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives me at kennethreitz Mar 13, 2012, 12:13 PM
        Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives brian at python Mar 13, 2012, 12:38 PM
    Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives tjreedy at udel Mar 13, 2012, 12:49 PM
        Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives guido at python Mar 13, 2012, 2:16 PM
    Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives thomas at python Mar 13, 2012, 12:50 PM
    Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives solipsis at pitrou Mar 13, 2012, 2:21 PM
        Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives guido at python Mar 13, 2012, 2:38 PM
        Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives anacrolix at gmail Mar 13, 2012, 8:31 PM
    Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives steve at pearwood Mar 13, 2012, 4:55 PM
        Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives solipsis at pitrou Mar 14, 2012, 2:07 AM
    Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives eliben at gmail Mar 13, 2012, 9:03 PM
    Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives anacrolix at gmail Mar 13, 2012, 10:49 PM
    Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives solipsis at pitrou Mar 14, 2012, 2:39 AM
        Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives stefan at bytereef Mar 14, 2012, 2:58 AM
            Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives solipsis at pitrou Mar 14, 2012, 3:00 AM
                Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives stefan at bytereef Mar 14, 2012, 3:20 AM
            Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives mark at hotpy Mar 14, 2012, 3:05 AM
                Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives rdmurray at bitdance Mar 14, 2012, 9:00 AM
                Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives tjreedy at udel Mar 14, 2012, 9:47 AM
        Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives anacrolix at gmail Mar 14, 2012, 9:26 AM
    Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives julien at tayon Mar 14, 2012, 9:16 AM
    Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives solipsis at pitrou Mar 14, 2012, 9:40 AM
    Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives jimjjewett at gmail Mar 19, 2012, 12:12 PM

  Index | Next | Previous | View Flat
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.