On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 3:22 AM, Jeff Forcier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Christian, just read over the new code branch. > > The overall splitting up looks pretty good, although core.py's still a > little bigger than I'd like. Otherwise, on an organizational level > it's far better than it used to be, so great job :D Two complaints and > a question:
Thanks. > > First, I don't really like many of the names of files/modules/etc. > They don't feel Pythonic and you know how much of a stickler I am > about names ;) There were also some whitespace issues. Both of these > things are pretty easily addressed and I hope to offer suggested > changes soon :) I knew something like this would pop up. Looking forward to your suggestions :) > > Secondly, I'm getting worried at the amount of decorator usage: as > much as I love decorators, when just about every single object has one > or two tacked on, something's gone wrong. Ditto on > functions-within-functions. Due to these things, Fabric doesn't really > feel as Pythonic anymore -- instead it feels hard to follow and > unnecessarily complex. > > This is not something so easily fixed, of course, it has to do with > wide-reaching design decisions and ways we keep track of all the > moving parts; I'm just mentioning it for now. When I have time to get > my hands dirty I'm hoping to re-wrap my head around the code, and > ideally rip things apart and rearrange in a clearer, simpler fashion, > if that's possible. Indeed, the only thing that has really changed in the design, is the use of more than one source file. While I can think of a couple of ways to reduce the functions-in-functions and decorator usage in the code (like moving all of those functions out of `plugin_main` and instead call the decorators as functions), I don't know if it makes sense since we might have a more fundamental issue in the that needs work. > > Finally: what's up with the "core plugin *" nomenclature? I don't see > how those things are really plugins per se, nor is it immediately > apparent to me (tho it's been a long day ;)) how those files set up an > actual "plugins" framework, if that's what is going on. What plugin? Oh, _that_ plugin! Uhm.... Yeah, that's a really bad name and no, there's no framework. I was trying to imagine what a plugin might look like. The `plug_main` function would be a setuptools entry-point (if they were actual plugins and we had a framework). That was the idea. I don't know if it's good or bad, but right now I can understand that it would be in the way. > > Despite all that -- thanks again for doing this, we need to get away > from the huge file-o-death no matter what and this does the job :) > > Thanks, > Jeff > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Christian Vest Hansen > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> And here we go: >> >> http://github.com/karmazilla/fabric/tree/as-package >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:50 PM, Christian Vest Hansen >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Just for your information. >>> >>> I'm working on refactorig the fabric.py module into a package, in a >>> local branch. When I get the basics up and running again, I will make >>> the branch public. >>> >>> It's a relatively big and risky change, so I hope people will give the >>> tires a good kicking, as I'd like to merge it into master sooner >>> rather than later (because merging patches & changes between the two >>> is troublesome). >>> >>> -- >>> Venlig hilsen / Kind regards, >>> Christian Vest Hansen. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Venlig hilsen / Kind regards, >> Christian Vest Hansen. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Fab-user mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fab-user >> > -- Venlig hilsen / Kind regards, Christian Vest Hansen. _______________________________________________ Fab-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fab-user
