On 09/16/2016 09:36 AM, Brian Bouterse wrote: > 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.
+1 > > -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 > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
