On Apr 19, 2011, at 12:13 PM, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote: > On 02:27 pm, marcin.kasper...@mekk.waw.pl wrote: >>> Part of the discussion was about how to rewrite this in such a way >>> that >>> no python code needs to be run in order to discover all the >>> tapname+description combinations that are available to twistd, this is >>> because of a perceived performance and sanity deficit in using >>> 'twistd'. >> >> Have you considered using setuptools entry_points? They are de facto >> standard and work fairly well for tools like paster or sqlalchemy... > > I don't think setuptools entry_points are expressive enough to be used > here. > However, regardless, due to problems with setuptools, I don't think > Twisted should gain a non-optional dependency on it (as it would be for > something as core as twistd plugins).
Strongly agreed on both counts. For a long time I wished that we could be more 'standard' in this regard, but the more I learned about how entrypoints actually work, the less I like them. > If distribute makes it into the > standard library (circa Python 3.3) then it might be reasonable to > consider depending on it, if it actually manages to fix the issues it > initially inherited from setuptools. I don't believe 'distribute' is ever making it into the standard library. The thing going into python 3.3 is 'packaging', which, obviously, is a copy (hopefully unmodified) of 'distutils2', which has nothing in common with 'distribute' except for its author. 'distribute' is a fork of setuptools that is actively maintained. 'distutils2' is a replacement for distutils (as I understand it, a rewrite) that does a bunch of things differently. More info here: <https://bitbucket.org/tarek/distutils2/wiki/Home>. _______________________________________________ Twisted-Python mailing list Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python