Excerpts from Nathaniel Smith's message of 2017-10-20 13:41:03 -0700: > On Oct 19, 2017 11:10, "Donald Stufft" <don...@stufft.io> wrote: > > > EXCEPT, for the fact that with the desire to cache things, it would be > beneficial to “hook” into the lifecycle of a package install. However I > know that there are other plugin systems out there that would like to also > be able to do that (Twisted Plugins come to mind) and that I think outside > of plugin systems, such a mechanism is likely to be useful in general for > other cases. > > So heres a different idea that is a bit more ambitious but that I think is > a better overall idea. Let entrypoints be a setuptools thing, and lets > define some key lifecycle hooks during the installation of a package and > some mechanism in the metadata to let other tools subscribe to those hooks. > Then a caching layer could be written for setuptools entrypoints to make > that faster without requiring standardization, but also a whole new, better > plugin system could to, Twisted plugins could benefit, etc [1].
Having post-install and pre-uninstall hooks should be sufficient for updating a cache, assuming the hook could be given enough information about the thing being manipulated to probe for whatever data it needs. > In this hypothetical system, how do installers like pip find the list of > hooks to call? By looking up an entrypoint? (Sorry if this was discussed > downthread; I didn't see it but I admit I only skimmed.) That's how I would expect it to work. Using setuptools most likely? That would mean that other plugin systems would have to provide one setuptools plugin to hook into the installer to build a lookup cache, but the actual plugins wouldn't have to use setuptools for anything. Doug _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
