On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Lennart Regebro <rege...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Vinay Sajip <vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Registry of what ever you like - pointers to data, perhaps. Any use of the
>> registry, just like entry points, is a matter of convention between
>> consenting
>> / cooperating developers and their applications/libraries, or am I missing
>> something? "Entry points" are not always entry points, are they? IIUC, you're
>> allowed to just define a module or package without the attributes appearing
>> after the ":"
>
> Right, but isn't that then an entry point?
>
> I agree REGISTRY is not a very good name in any case.
I would prefer to keep the filename the same as long as the format is
the same. (Not a suggestion to change the format.) bdist_wheel is easy
to edit but pkg_resources.py is not because it has a long release
cycle and if you make a mistake you will break almost every Python
installation. Right now a new class attribute Distribution.PKG_INFO
keeps track of whether the PEP-defined Metadata 1.0-1.3 is called
PKG-INFO or METADATA. To support REGISTRY in pkg_resources you might
do something similar, changing line ~2319
self._get_metadata('entry_points.txt'), self
to
self._get_metadata(self.ENTRY_POINTS_FILENAME), self
or
for name in (possible, entry, points, filenames):
...
defining ENTRY_POINTS_FILENAME for both Distribution and
DistInfoDistribution, and you would have to wait for a new distribute
release.
In other words, it is a hassle and the feature is the same. An
entry_point is always an entry_point. It should no sooner be confused
with an English "point of entry" than keywords like "print" should be
confused with pressing books.
Daniel
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
