On 09/15/2016 11:47 AM, Brian Bouterse wrote: > <snip> > > 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. > > This would cause any number of python packages to live as > pulp.<mypackagename> instead of pulp.app.<mypackagename>
Will the home of tasks affect the import order? Particularly since we are also splitting the models out of a single file, I am reminded strongly of the circular imports disaster we had in 2.y when workers attempted to import their tasks, which each needed different models. Tbh, I am having a hard time imagining how the final import trees might look, but I am curious if that is something that has been planned. _______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
