On 09/15/2016 10:47 AM, Brian Bouterse wrote: > I'm thinking of this in the context of my conversion of the tasking system to > use the new Django-based models. > As part of that transition the "tasking system code" is moving out of > pulp/server/pulp/server/async/* and > moving into pulp/app/pulp/app/tasks/* This will make imports to taking system > code import from pulp.app.tasks > > I'm wondering if moving it to pulp.tasks would be a better home? Along with > that line of thinking, we would > only put code in the Django app which Django uses. Views, Models, Migrations, > Settings, Middleware. Things > like that.
+1
>
> This would cause any number of python packages to live as
> pulp.<mypackagename> instead of
> pulp.app.<mypackagename>
>
> In summary, my two questions are:
>
> 1) Should a thing like the tasks module live in pulp.app.tasks or pulp.tasks?
pulp.tasks
Side note: I vote for pulp.tasking
>
> 2) If it does live at pulp.app.tasks should we always import it as
> pulp.app.tasks or should I instead do:
>
> from django.db.models import get_app
> pulp_tasks_module = get_app('pulp').tasks
>
> Right now I lean towards placing the code at pulp.tasks and using normal
> Python importing like "from pulp
> import tasks".
+1
>
> What do you think?
>
> -Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
