Daniel Holth <dholth <at> gmail.com> writes:
> I can accept a rename but there is no way to avoid having 2 names not 1 new > name for the feature. > We go halfway now. The next version can go any other way. Just to be clear, the naming of "exports" vs. "entry points" was not the main thrust of my point - I mentioned it purely by way of explaining that part of the JSON snippet I posted. What I meant to say is that that parsing or writing a JSON file called entry_points.txt (or whatever) is just as easy as parsing or writing an ini-format file. However, the benefit of JSON is clear when composing a larger set of data from separate files (see the separate thread about metadata caching). One can more easily compose the data in entry_points.txt, METADATA, requires-dist.txt and anything else if they are just JSON files. That is what I do in my JSON metadata format - the dependency information is extracted from the metadata for a release into an aggregated form which is easier to use when doing dependency resolution. Regards, Vinay Sajip _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
