On 23/05/11 07:42, Andrew Bennetts wrote: > Max Bowsher wrote: >> A huge amount of the UDD importer's interesting code is in one file, >> icommon.py. >> >> I'd like to submit a series of changes to break it up such that only the >> most common bits of code remain there. > > This all sounds pretty reasonable to me. > > However I don't much care for the “ifoo” module naming convention. I > assume the “i” stands for “importer” but it always makes me think > “interface” first. > > If we want a namespace for these modules (and I think we do; namespaces > are a good idea[1]) then let's do that the standard Python way: with a > package. Because I'm uncreative with names I suggest calling it > “package_importer”, or perhaps “udd”. So rather than “idatabase” I > propose “package_importer.database”. What do you think? > > This would have the advantage of keeping the directory of scripts that > are interesting for a person to run mostly separate from the libraries > used to implement them. At the moment they're jumbled together. > > -Andrew. > > [1] Actually, not just good, honking great: python -c 'import this'
"package_importer" is a bit long. "udd" works for me, especially as the project lives in lp:udd. Once we have a namespace, I'm inclined to move the tests there too - that would sidestep naughty packages which install top-level "tests" modules on the system path. Max.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
