Thanks for the response, Malcolm! On Dec 1, 3:54 pm, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 2007-12-01 at 12:25 -0800, AmanKow wrote: > > I am curious as to whether the django community cannot comfortably do > > away with support for python 2.3 in the effort towards django 1.0. > > There were significant changes made between python 2.3 and 2.4, and > > continuing support of 2.3 in the django code base is a significant > > restriction. As django 1.0 will not be fully compatible with .96, > > this might be an opportune time to drop the 2.3 support. > > Which would also mean dropping the newly added Jython support, so I'm > against it for that reason.
Are there many folks using django on jython for real world web development? I'm just curious, as it seems like it would be a very small percentage of django users. > Also, in practice, there are a *lot* of > installations still running Python 2.3. Sometimes it's just not > convenient to upgrade your Python installation every couple of years. I understand that. But, with 2.6 coming soon and 3.0 on the horizon, it seems that continued support of older versions could get expensive. I did a quick search of django tickets for "python 2.3" and found over two hundred hits, the vast majority of those dealing with compatibility issues with 2.3. That seems to be a significant amount of django work from contributors who could be working on other things. > > The peps of most import to my reasoning for dropping 2.3 support in > > 1.0: > > > PEP 218: Built-In Set Objects > > Allow the removal of code that conditionally loads the set module > > and allow the use of frozenset > > We already work around this. Not an issue. Yes. I am a relative newb to the django world, and as I familiarize myself with the code base, I am continually impressed with its quality! It is not an issue in the sense that a workaround exists, it just seems to me to be an issue in terms of the overall cleanness of the code to need these workarounds. Also, I did see tickets related to new code that needed to implement the workaround. Not exactly DRY. > > > PEP 289: Generator Expressions > > Efficiency in a web server is very important. There are many > > instances in the code base where list > > comprehensions are used when generator expressions would more than > > suffice. As a list comprehension > > basically wraps a generator expression in a call to list(), many > > unneeded temporary lists can be avoided. > > The resulting saving in cpu and memory could be significant. > > Prove it. I don't think it's worth it. Certainly not a showstopper. If > you want to make optimisations, there are plenty of other places where > work could be done that would have larger impact than generators (and if > there's a case where a list comprehension is really hurting us, we can > unwrap it into a for loop and avoid the list construction). Yikes! That would be difficult without making the many changes and profiling both versions. However, a quick grep of the source code shows 370 list comprehensions in 97. Now, I'm not sure what that means in terms of runtime profile, but it could be significant. And again, unwrapping to loops is less efficient, more verbose. As always, less is more. > > PEP 318: Decorators for Functions and Methods > > It is a shame that the code base can't take advantage of decorator > > syntax, even as it defines useful decorators. > > Since there's absolutely no functional loss by not using decorators, > this is a bit of a moot point. It's just syntactic sugar that we can > live without. Well, sugar is sweet... yes there is a reason for decorator syntax... it puts the intent right up front. Even the django docs show decorator syntax usage in examples. [...] > I am strongly -1 on this. Supporting 2.3 isn't hurting us enough to be > worth handicapping all those people who take advantage of this. > > Regards, > Malcolm Thanks again for your input, Malcolm. I've asked this question out of genuine curiosity. I have a project coming up that will rely heavily on django, and I wish to be a good citizen and get involved in returning to the django community where I can. To that end, I've been perusing the code base and started wondering... Wayne --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
