On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 17:23 -0500, Augie Fackler wrote: > On May 26, 2010, at 5:20 PM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote: > > > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 14:32 -0700, David Borowitz wrote: > >> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 13:31, Augie Fackler <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> On May 26, 2010, at 11:48 AM, David Borowitz wrote: > >> > >> I'm definitely open to the idea of simplifying and/or > >> combining dul-daemon > >> and dul-web. To be honest, it feels a little messy > >> every time I have to add > >> more code to one of those scripts. In my ideal world, > >> these wrapper scripts > >> would contain as little code as possible (basically > >> "if __name__ == > >> '__main__': start_server('http', sys.argv[1:])"). > >> > >> Another possibility that moves in a slightly different > >> direction is to use > >> setuptools's entry points: > >> > >> http://peak.telecommunity.com/DevCenter/setuptools#automatic-script-creation > >> > >> > >> <http://peak.telecommunity.com/DevCenter/setuptools#automatic-script-creation > >> > >> >(Tangentially, > >> the reason I added the logging code to dul-web was > >> that I didn't want to put > >> the WSGI handlers in web.py, since wsgiref is not part > >> of the python2.4 > >> standard library. That said, every python2.4 system I > >> have has wsgiref > >> installed, and I'm sure we could come up with a > >> conditional import scheme > >> that fails gracefully.) > >> > >> > >> I'd be a _huge_ fan of using entry points instead of > >> maintaining scripts - manually maintained scripts are often a > >> colossal pain when using something like virtualenv or > >> buildout. > >> > >> > >> I agree, that's why I suggested it :) > > > >> The only downside as far as I can see is that it introduces a > >> dependency on setuptools, but pretty much everyone has setuptools > >> anyway (don't they?). Maybe it's possible to do something equivalent > >> with distutils but I don't know how. > > FWIW I didn't have setuptools installed until I received a patch for > > Dulwich that added support for it to setup.py. > > > > Is there any particular benefit in using entry points rather than > > using > > a trivial stub script that does "from dulwich.server import > > start_server; start_server(sys.argv[1:])" ? > > You don't have a hardcoded shebang line which users may have to edit. > Even #!/usr/bin/env python can be wrong (if say, the default system > Python is 2.6, but someone is installing against a build of 2.4 or 2.5 > to test against a production-like environment). Ah, ok.
As long as this doesn't mean depending on setuptools when we "import dulwich" I don't have any objections. We could either add the trivial stub if setuptools wasn't available or simply not install the dulwich and dul-daemon scripts. Cheers, Jelmer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dulwich-users Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dulwich-users More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
