Looks good to me. I've been told in the past that it is more "pythonic" to have one large module with codepaths that are always there but don't work unless you installed with extras, versus having multiple modules that are fully functional without extras. Is that still the prevailing view for Beam? It seems like the combinatorial complexity of testing is getting pretty extraordinary.
Kenn On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 3:35 PM Danny McCormick via dev <dev@beam.apache.org> wrote: > Hey everyone, I put together a mini-doc on bundling some more Beam > Python/ML extras so that we have a better strategy for making sure that > users can use ML (or other Python) dependencies which are well tested with > their Beam version. It is mostly in line with how we handle our other > dependencies and only expands that scope a bit with some new extras, but it > should give us a well-defined strategy moving forward which we can > reference back to as needed. > > Please take a look here if you're interested - > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c84Gc-cZRCfrU8f7kWGsNR2o8oSRjCM-dGHO9KvPWPw/edit?usp=sharing > > Thanks, > Danny >
