astitcher commented on pull request #318: URL: https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/318#issuecomment-855955069
> > I think that the cffi binding should be a drop in replacement for import cproton as there a number of places where this is used. > > My thinking was that the `cproton` module is internal API that does not have to be preserved. The only external use of the API that I am aware of are these two tests in Qpid Dispatch, https://github.com/apache/qpid-dispatch/search?l=Python&q=cproton I think there is some confusion here about internal vs external use of the API. The testing I'm thinking of is indeed inside the python test suite, but these tests actually test the c code not the python code. In any case, My point is about better layering for the python library. Which will affect the maintainability of the code more than anything else. So it'll be easier to debug/modify and generally evolve over time if it has better layering: Keeping the details of ffi outside the top level python binding code will it seems to me make it much easier to evolve this code over time in many ways. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
