[Python-Dev] PEP 376 proposed changes for basic plugins support

[Michael Foord]

On 03/08/2010 16:24, David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Michael Foord
> <fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk>  wrote:
>    
>> On 03/08/2010 15:19, David Cournapeau wrote:
>>      
>>> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Antoine Pitrou<solipsis at pitrou.net>
>>>   wrote:
>>>
>>>        
>>>> On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 10:28:07 +0200
>>>> "M.-A. Lemburg"<mal at egenix.com>    wrote:
>>>>
>>>>          
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>            
>>>> If the cache can become stale because of system package management
>>>> tools, how do you avoid I/O calls while checking that the database is
>>>> fresh enough at startup?
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> There is a tension between the two approaches: either you want
>>> "auto-discovery", or you want a system with explicit registration and
>>> only the registered plugins would be visible to the system.
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>> Not true. Auto-discovery provides an API for applications to tell users
>> which plugins are *available* whilst still allowing the app to decide which
>> are active / enabled. It still leaves full control in the hands of the
>> application.
>>      
> Maybe  I was not clear, but I don't understand how your statement
> contradict mine. The issue is how to determine which plugins are
> available: if you don't have an explicit registration, you need to
> constantly restat every potential location (short of using OS specific
> systems to to get notification from fs changes). The current python
> solutions that I am familiar with are prohibitively computing
> intensive for this reason (think about what happens when you stat
> locations on NFS shares).
>    

Ah, I thought you were arguing against the plugins proposal altogether. 
If you are merely saying that you prefer the proposal to maintain the 
list of plugins via an explicit registration process (i.e. a central 
file somewhere) rather than "stating around" then I don't *particularly* 
have an opinion on the matter.

I want to use the API and the implementation details are up to others to 
work out. :-)

Sorry for the confusion.

Michael

> David
>    


-- 
http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog

READ CAREFULLY. By accepting and reading this email you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (”BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.