P.J. Eby wrote: > At 10:37 PM 8/2/2010 +0200, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: >> If that's the case, then it would be better to come up with an >> idea of how to make access to that meta-data available in a less >> I/O intense way, e.g. by having pip or other package managers update >> a central SQLite database cache of the data found on disk. > > Don't forget system packaging tools like .deb, .rpm, etc., which do not > generally take kindly to updating such things. For better or worse, the > filesystem *is* our "central database" these days.
I don't think that's a problem: the SQLite database would be a cache like e.g. a font cache or TCSH command cache, not a replacement of the meta files stored in directories. Such a database would solve many things at once: faster access to the meta-data of installed packages, fewer I/O calls during startup, more flexible ways of doing queries on the meta-data, needed for introspection and discovery, etc. > Btw, while adding PLUGINS to PEP 376 is a new proposal, it's essentially > another spelling of the existing entry_points.txt used by eggs; it > changes the format to csv instead of .ini, and adds "description" and > "type" fields, but drops requirements information and I'm not sure if it > can point to arbitrary objects the way entry_points.txt can. > > Anyway, entry_points.txt has been around enough years in the field that > the concept itself can't really be called "new" - it's actually quite > proven. Checking > http://nullege.com/codes/search/pkg_resources.iter_entry_points/call , I > find 187 modules using just that one entry points API. > > Some projects do have more than one module loading plugins, but the > majority of those 187 appear to be different projects. > > Note that that's modules *loading plugins*, not plugins being > provided... so the total number of PyPI projects using entry points in > some way is likely much higher, once you add in the plugins that these > 187 lookups are, well, looking up. setuptools entry points are just one way of doing plugins. There are other such systems that work well and which do not require any special administration or setup, simply because the application using the plugins defines the plugin protocol. Since you are into comparing numbers, you might want to count the number of Zope plugins that are available on PyPI and its plugin system has been around much longer than setuptools has been. I don't think that proves anything, though. I simply don't see a good reason to complicate the Python packaging system by trying to add a particular plugin support to it. Plugins are application scope features and should be treated as such. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Aug 03 2010) >>> Python/Zope Consulting and Support ... http://www.egenix.com/ >>> mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ... http://zope.egenix.com/ >>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ... http://python.egenix.com/ ________________________________________________________________________ ::: Try our new mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! :::: eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/ _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
