Re: [Zope-dev] Namespace declaration using pkgutil vs pkg_resources
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Shane Hathaway wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> Since ``setuptools`` is a dependency of our packages anyway, we
>> can instead do the following::
>>
>> __import__('pkg_resources').declare_namespace(__name__)
>>
>> Feel free to use that and also feel free to simplify existing
>> ``__init__.py`` modules. Just make sure ``setuptools`` is a declared
>> dependency of the package.
>
> Nit: In this case, two lines are better than one.
>
> import pkg_resources
> pkg_resources.declare_namespace(__name__)
>
> There's no need to use the lesser known __import__ function when an
> ordinary import statement will do.
Actually three lines will be required to replace that single line:
import pkg_resources
pkg_resources.declare_namespace(__name__)
del(pkg_resources)
BTW, I am +1 for single line __import__ approach.
Regards,
Baiju M
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Namespace declaration using pkgutil vs pkg_resources
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Shane Hathaway wrote: > Nit: In this case, two lines are better than one. > > import pkg_resources > pkg_resources.declare_namespace(__name__) > > There's no need to use the lesser known __import__ function when an > ordinary import statement will do. Indeed. -- Benji York Senior Software Engineer Zope Corporation ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Namespace declaration using pkgutil vs pkg_resources
Martijn Faassen wrote:
>Since ``setuptools`` is a dependency of our packages anyway, we
>can instead do the following::
>
>__import__('pkg_resources').declare_namespace(__name__)
>
>Feel free to use that and also feel free to simplify existing
>``__init__.py`` modules. Just make sure ``setuptools`` is a declared
>dependency of the package.
Nit: In this case, two lines are better than one.
import pkg_resources
pkg_resources.declare_namespace(__name__)
There's no need to use the lesser known __import__ function when an
ordinary import statement will do.
Shane
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Namespace declaration using pkgutil vs pkg_resources
Hey,
Zvezdan Petkovic wrote:
> On Mar 11, 2009, at 10:29 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> Since Jim says you're not missing something, I'm going to add to the
>> Zope Framework Steering Group decisions that this is enough and we
>> could clean up __init__.py's to this if we would want to.
>
> So, let me try to understand the decision process here:
>
> 1. The extras_require is banned to enable building with regular
> distutils.
Huh? What does this have to do with regular distutils? That never was
mentioned in the extra discussion as far as I know.
Anyway, extras_requires isn't banned at all.
http://docs.zope.org/zopeframework/steeringgroup/decisions.html
We're careful about extras as they can make it harder to reason about
package dependencies.
> 2. pkgutil is now banned which will prevent regular distutils from
> working properly.
>
> What exactly do we want to achieve?
Who banned pkgutil? I recorded this:
* In namespace package's ``__init__.py`` we have been using the following
boilerplate code::
try:
import pkg_resources
pkg_resources.declare_namespace(__name__)
except ImportError:
import pkgutil
__path__ = pkgutil.extend_path(__path__, __name__)
Since ``setuptools`` is a dependency of our packages anyway, we
can instead do the following::
__import__('pkg_resources').declare_namespace(__name__)
Feel free to use that and also feel free to simplify existing
``__init__.py`` modules. Just make sure ``setuptools`` is a declared
dependency of the package.
I'm not very concerned with making regular distutils work myself; I
don't really see the point as we're heavily committed to setuptools
anyway as a project.
Tres remarked that it might if we continued to write this. I don't quite
see how that could be. People need setuptools installed anyway to be
able to run the code in setup.py.
To me, building with regular distutils is *not* interesting to the Zope
Framework project at this stage. It just isn't capable enough and we can
use our time a lot better than worry about that.
Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Namespace declaration using pkgutil vs pkg_resources
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Zvezdan Petkovic wrote: > On Mar 11, 2009, at 10:29 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote: >> Since Jim says you're not missing something, I'm going to add to the >> Zope Framework Steering Group decisions that this is enough and we >> could clean up __init__.py's to this if we would want to. > > So, let me try to understand the decision process here: > > 1. The extras_require is banned to enable building with regular > distutils. extras_require is _not_ banned yet. There is no such decision here: http://docs.zope.org/zopeframework/steeringgroup/decisions.html Though I can see this: "We can consider removing extra dependencies for particular Zope Framework packages in order to make the dependency graph easier to reason about. We will do this on a case by case basis though." > 2. pkgutil is now banned which will prevent regular distutils from > working properly. 'setuptools' is a hard-dependency for all packages now, without removing that, there is no point in keeping that fall-back import of 'pkgutil'. Regards, Baiju M ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Namespace declaration using pkgutil vs pkg_resources
On Mar 11, 2009, at 10:29 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote: > Since Jim says you're not missing something, I'm going to add to the > Zope Framework Steering Group decisions that this is enough and we > could clean up __init__.py's to this if we would want to. So, let me try to understand the decision process here: 1. The extras_require is banned to enable building with regular distutils. 2. pkgutil is now banned which will prevent regular distutils from working properly. What exactly do we want to achieve? Zvezdan ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Namespace declaration using pkgutil vs pkg_resources
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jim Fulton wrote: > On Mar 11, 2009, at 8:24 AM, Baiju M wrote: > >> Hi All, >> Now we have 'setuptools' as a dependency for all packages. >> (I guess this is to make Buildout happy ?) > > No, it is because setuptools is needed for namespace packages. The boilerpate Baiju is wondering about replacement shows how to do non-setuptools "extensible" packages (quasi-namespaces). Declaring the dependency on setuptools is a bit silly, because only setuptools knows about dependencies: the only reason we declare it everywhere is to appease zc.buildout. I would leave the boilerplate alone, on the chance that it makes the package usable via straight distutils. Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tsea...@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design"http://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJt8oo+gerLs4ltQ4RAmlwAJ4luuHcp8fY6DNI83mdvJNHQi5vGwCgpWGA YvcZU4qT5Pe0Qu7y3RLo8fw= =nZvD -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Namespace declaration using pkgutil vs pkg_resources
Baiju M wrote:
[snip]
> Just this line would be enough to declare a namespace:
>
> __import__('pkg_resources').declare_namespace(__name__)
>
> Am I missing something ?
Since Jim says you're not missing something, I'm going to add to the
Zope Framework Steering Group decisions that this is enough and we could
clean up __init__.py's to this if we would want to.
Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Namespace declaration using pkgutil vs pkg_resources
On Mar 11, 2009, at 8:24 AM, Baiju M wrote:
> Hi All,
> Now we have 'setuptools' as a dependency for all packages.
> (I guess this is to make Buildout happy ?)
No, it is because setuptools is needed for namespace packages.
> So, it is certain that 'pkg_resources' module will be always
> available as it is bundled with 'setuptools'. If that is the case,
> why do we need a fall-back import of 'pkgutil' to declare
> a namespace package?
We don't.
>
>
> So instead of:
>
> try:
> import pkg_resources
> pkg_resources.declare_namespace(__name__)
> except ImportError:
> import pkgutil
> __path__ = pkgutil.extend_path(__path__, __name__)
>
> Just this line would be enough to declare a namespace:
>
> __import__('pkg_resources').declare_namespace(__name__)
>
> Am I missing something ?
Nope.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton
Zope Corporation
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Namespace declaration using pkgutil vs pkg_resources
Hi All,
Now we have 'setuptools' as a dependency for all packages.
(I guess this is to make Buildout happy ?)
So, it is certain that 'pkg_resources' module will be always
available as it is bundled with 'setuptools'. If that is the case,
why do we need a fall-back import of 'pkgutil' to declare
a namespace package?
So instead of:
try:
import pkg_resources
pkg_resources.declare_namespace(__name__)
except ImportError:
import pkgutil
__path__ = pkgutil.extend_path(__path__, __name__)
Just this line would be enough to declare a namespace:
__import__('pkg_resources').declare_namespace(__name__)
Am I missing something ?
Regards,
Baiju M
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
