[Pulp-dev] Django app naming discussion summary

Jeff Ortel jortel at redhat.com
Thu Sep 8 18:06:45 UTC 2016

Great recap.  All sounds good.  Thanks, Sean.

On 09/01/2016 03:55 PM, Sean Myers wrote:
> This morning we had an ad hoc discussion regarding the naming/namespacing
> of our django apps in the Pulp platform and its plugins in Pulp 3. While
> we were there we also talked a little bit about the pulp plugin API namespace,
> and how we plan to "register" our plugin apps with Django.
> I'll outline my recollection of the main points here, and elaborate below.
> This is all from memory (I forgot to take notes...), so please correct anything
> I've gotten wrong.
> - All Django apps should be named <package>.app
>   - Rename pulp.platform to pulp.app (pulp.platform is currently the platform
>     django app)
>   - Plugins should also follow this naming scheme
> - Plugin API should be exposed under pulp.plugin(s). Anything importable
>   from this namespace should be considered part of the versioned plugin API
> - Use Django's Applications framework (linked below) to initialize plugins
>   - Use python entry points to discover plugin Django apps and add them to
>   - Don't use entry points for anything else
>   - Do use Django's AppConfig to trigger any needed plugin initialization
>     functionality
> The details!
> = All Django apps should be named <package>.app
> Currently, no plugins have created Django apps for Pulp 3. The platform
> Django app is 'pulp.platform' itself. For simplicity's sake, the consensus
> was to call the Django apps "app". It's brief, and at least in the Django
> context it makes it clear that this is what gets added to Django's
> INSTALLED_APPS list to make the plugin known to Django.
> Since pulp.platform currently is the platform Django app, the proposal is
> to rename pulp.platform to pulp.app.
> This work is tracked in https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2226, including details
> about the open PRs we'd like to see closed before renaming pulp.platform.
> Please update that issue as appropriate if I missed any 3.0-related pull
> requests that might be affected by the pulp.platform rename.
> The plugins have not yet been converted, but when Django apps are created
> in the plugins, they should be similarly named. So, for example, rpm's
> Django app will be pulp_rpm.app, docker will will be pulp_docker.app, etc.
> = Plugin API should be exposed under pulp.plugin(s)
> We touched on a few other topics, including namespacing the entire plugin
> API under pulp.plugin, so that plugin writers would ideally only ever
> "from pulp.plugin import what_they_need". pulp.plugin was used interchangeably
> with pulp.plugins (I prefer the former but don't care). Explicitly
> exposing this namespace as "the plugin API" (hopefully) makes it easier to
> manage semantic versioning here. This would mean, for example, importing
> base models that we want to expose to plugins into a module named like
> "pulp.plugins.models". In this example, the plugins would therefore *not*
> import any models from pulp.app.models.
> This might be infeasible; Brian is taking it into account while working on
> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2181
> = Use Django's Applications framework to initialize plugins
> Finally, I mentioned my thoughts about how we would use Django's apps framework
> as the basis for all plugin capability discovery. The gist is that "we'll use it
> exactly how Django says to use it", as described in their docs:
> https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.8/ref/applications/
> Specifically applied to pulp, we're most likely going to use entry points to
> make the installed plugins discoverable as Django apps and get them added to
> Django's INSTALLED_APPS. From there, my current thinking is that we'll have
> a specialized AppConfig subclass that plugins will use to uniformly register
> their required and optional functionality with the Pulp platform. We get some
> of this "for free", like models discovery, by virtue of using Django, so I'm
> thinking that this specifically relates to things like making sure the API is
> made aware of new views that it'll need to expose, tasks get loaded, or any
> other initialization-time functionality we might want.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160908/63949d8e/attachment.sig>

More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list