On 17 Jul 2013 10:03, "Donald Stufft" <don...@stufft.io> wrote: > > > On Jul 16, 2013, at 8:00 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On 17 Jul 2013 04:19, "Vinay Sajip" <vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > >If I were writing a firm proposal, I'd go for something like entry points as metadata >> > >> > My extended metadata already covers this, though I use the name "exports" (suggested by PJE) because you can share not just code but data, and "entry points" generally implies code. The current version of distil creates wrappers for both gui and console scripts, and adds the appropriate native executable wrappers (32- or 64-bit, according to the running Python) on Windows. >> >> Yeah, originally we were going to postpone dealing with entry points to a metadata extension (Daniel even had a proto-PEP kicking around in the pre-JSON days). >> >> However, I now think it makes more sense to standardise them as an "exports" field in PEP 426. So run with the assumption that something like that will be part of the standard metadata - either derived from entry_points.txt for existing metadata, or specified directly for next generation metadata. >> >> Cheers, >> Nick. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org >> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig > > > Are these only the scripts portion of entry points, or the whole kit and caboodle of pluggable entry points? Because I think the first makes sense, the second I'm hesitant on.
Actually, it may be better to have a top level "scripts" field, distinct from a general export mechanism. I'm seeing value in an exports mechanism, though. Yes, *in theory* you can get the same effect with an extension, but extensions can do a lot of other things, too. Python's metaprogramming is built on a model of multiple tools with increasing levels of power, flexibility and complexity, so I'm thinking an exports vs extensions split may be a good approach in a similar vein. No decision on this front yet, but I think it's at least worth my trying it out to see how it looks in the context of the PEP. (After all, we already know entry points are quite a popular feature of the setuptools metadata) A couple of bonus features of standardisation are that we can tie it into the extras system and automatic analysis tools can check the exports can actually be imported without needing to understand arbitrary extensions. Cheers, Nick. > > ----------------- > Donald Stufft > PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA >
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
