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
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Reply via email to