The 30ish tasks themselves are not yet moved. Those currently are still in their existing homes in pulp.server.path.to.a.task. I don't plan to move them with my changes.

When we do move the tasks, we may run into import issues at that time, but I think we will be able to resolve them. We may want to move them into the package pulp.tasking.registry. It would be great to have all of our tasks defined in one place.


-Brian

On 09/16/2016 09:05 AM, Austin Macdonald wrote:


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