[Pulp-dev] Does everything live in pulp.app?

[Jeff Ortel]

On 09/16/2016 09:36 AM, Brian Bouterse wrote:
> The 30ish tasks themselves are not yet moved. Those currently are still in their existing homes in
> pulp.server.path.to.a.task. I don't plan to move them with my changes.
> 
> When we do move the tasks, we may run into import issues at that time, but I think we will be able to resolve
> them. We may want to move them into the package pulp.tasking.registry. It would be great to have all of our
> tasks defined in one place.

+1

> 
> -Brian
> 
> On 09/16/2016 09:05 AM, Austin Macdonald wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 09/15/2016 11:47 AM, Brian Bouterse wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> I'm wondering if moving it to pulp.tasks would be a better home? Along
>>> with that line of thinking, we would only put code in the Django app
>>> which Django uses. Views, Models, Migrations, Settings, Middleware.
>>> Things like that.
>>>
>>> This would cause any number of python packages to live as
>>> pulp.<mypackagename> instead of pulp.app.<mypackagename>
>>
>> Will the home of tasks affect the import order? Particularly since we
>> are also splitting the models out of a single file, I am reminded
>> strongly of the circular imports disaster we had in 2.y when workers
>> attempted to import their tasks, which each needed different models.
>> Tbh, I am having a hard time imagining how the final import trees might
>> look, but I am curious if that is something that has been planned.
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 847 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20161005/307527e4/attachment.sig>