Barry A. Warsaw <ba...@python.org> added the comment: On Oct 13, 2011, at 04:01 PM, Éric Araujo wrote:
>The PEP 376 implementation in packaging.database has been called ugly and >opaque. When discussing PEP 396 for example (that’s why I’m adding Barry and >Antoine to nosy, for their feedback), >get_distribution(name).metadata['Version'] did not seem to agree with >everyone. (Note that there are shortcuts for two metadata fields: name and >version also exist as get_distribution(name).name / .version.) I don't entirely remember my objections to the API, but I wonder if you couldn't provide attribute access via properties on .metadata? Or are there keys that can't be mapped to identifiers (modulo typical dash-to-underscore mappings)? >I’m not sure how we can make it less opaque, unless we force people to read >documentation: PEP 376 proposes a database of installed distributions; >packaging.database offers get_distribution, which returns an object with some >attributes. I can’t have an outside view on this, so maybe you can explain >what’s opaque and ugly so that we can try to improve it. > >I’ve found in distutils-sig archives from two or three years ago that people >intended to offer a get_metadata function that would take a distribution name >(i.e. pyOpenSSL, Babel, flufl.enum) and return a mapping object with the >metadata read from the installed dist-info/METADATA file. Does that look >better to you? So, that would mean instead of get_distribution(name).metadata['Version'] you'd use get_metadata(name)['Version'] ? I'm not sure that's really buys you much. Maybe we just need to live with the current API for a while before we try to improve it. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue13167> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
