On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Justin Ross <justin.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Justin Ross <justin.r...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > - Python is using utils, not util. I don't care whether we go util or > > utils, but I'd very much like to avoid it being half one way and half the > > other. If we decide utils, I'll update the wiki page. > > > > Distinct from the naming consistency question, util[s] has an ambiguity of > purpose that I think is important to resolve--particularly in Python, > because it's difficult to have clean dependencies if we don't. > > These are the two ways people tend use util: > > 1. Functions and classes for internal use by other parts of the proton > library; that is, handy stuff that your language library didn't give you > 2. Functions and classes for external use by consumers of proton > > PROTON-805 adds more of the latter to proton/utils.py, and it already had > BlockingConnection. Having both types of util in one module ends up making > imports a mess because it contains at once quite low-level things and > high-level things. > > Maybe we should have proton/extras.py for stuff like BlockingConnection and > SyncRequestResponseHandler and reserve utils.py for the internal utility > code. > Are you thinking of extras.py as being like contrib or something different? (FYI, we already have a contrib on the proton-j side of things, so having a proton/contrib.py would be consistent.) I definitely agree that PROTON-805 is making dubious use of the utils package, not only for the reasons you state, but also because the general request/response scenario should probably at some point be supported in a more core way, and that might result in a different API. I could be wrong since I haven't actually looked into how it works and it might be just fine, but I'd be inclined to put it into a more sandboxy area for the moment. Someplace where it's ok to leave it for a bit to provide backwards compatibility even if it's functionality is subsumed by other APIs. --Rafael
