*bump* Does this sound like a viable solution?
Stefan Stefan Behnel, 25.08.2013 14:36: > Hi, > > thanks for bringing this up. It clearly shows that there is more to this > problem than I initially thought. > > Let me just add one idea that your post gave me. > > PJ Eby, 25.08.2013 06:12: >> My "Importing" package offers lazy imports by creating module objects >> in sys.modules that are a subtype of ModuleType, and use a >> __getattribute__ hook so that trying to use them fires off a reload() >> of the module. > > I wonder if this wouldn't be an approach to fix the reloading problem in > general. What if extension module loading, at least with the new scheme, > didn't return the module object itself and put it into sys.modules but > created a wrapper that redirects its __getattr__ and __setattr__ to the > actual module object? That would have a tiny performance impact on > attribute access, but I'd expect that to be negligible given that the usual > reason for the extension module to exist is that it does non-trivial stuff > in whatever its API provides. Reloading could then really create a > completely new module object and replace the reference inside of the wrapper. > > That way, code that currently uses "from extmodule import xyz" would > continue to see the original version of the module as of the time of its > import, and code that just did "import extmodule" and then used attribute > access at need would always see the current content of the module as it was > last loaded. I think that, together with keeping module global state in the > module object itself, would nicely fix both cases. > > Stefan _______________________________________________ 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
