After spending the majority of the day hunting down the fine details of this plan, I'm in agreement with Michael that it isn't the best option here. While it seemed interesting on the surface, the devil is in the details, as they say. And this just appears to be a little too non-standard for us.
Patrick On Mon, 2017-04-10 at 16:49 -0400, Michael Hrivnak wrote: > The "datadir" idea is a good option to have, and I can see how it could work. > That said, it has a > couple of drawbacks worth considering. > > 1) I regularly think about the Principle of Least Surprise, and it applies > well here. Python devs > know that python code usually goes in site-packages. Not finding Pulp code > there would be > surprising in most cases. It may work great and be completely valid, but I > think we should have a > very good reason before straying from such a convention. Python packaging is > a complicated enough > topic as it is (see - vs _, setuptools vs. distutil vs distribute, package > name vs. python > namespace, etc), that I think we will benefit from sticking to defaults when > possible and > reasonable. > > This aspect is definitely not a deal-breaker. I'm sure other apps do this > successfully. It's just > a factor that makes me lean another direction. > > 2) This would not entirely eliminate the namespace collision, if we continued > using the "pulp" > namespace in python. Keep in mind that we're not just worried about a > collision in site-packages; > we're worried about a collision at runtime in the interpreter's global > namespace. If we add a new > location to PYTHONPATH, but the "pulp" namespace is used in the new location > AND in site-packages, > that's asking for trouble. Maybe it would work ok by completely overshadowing > the "pulp" in site- > packages (I'm not sure if it would), but it seems safer to just use a > different namespace than > "pulp". > > And if we use a different namespace than "pulp", I don't think we gain > anything from installing to > a separate location. > > This also may not be a deal-breaker, but it nudges me in the direction of > just using a non-"pulp" > name in the standard location. > > Thanks Patrick for raising this as an option. > > Michael > > -- > Michael Hrivnak > Principal Software Engineer, RHCE > Red Hat > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > Pulp-dev@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
