[Pulp-dev] python namespace proposal

[Brian Bouterse]

To make a concrete listing of what we would register, I wrote out a list of
all PyPI packages to be registered as column A here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1F6_eOefpHkwtxm1YXgjAypGHW826Ogt5Z3Us4elg-YY/edit?usp=sharing

I've written these out with dashes not underscores. I *think* either would
work. Is this what others had in mind?


On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Michael Hrivnak <mhrivnak at redhat.com>
wrote:

> I also imagine us getting to that point where the CLI does not require any
> code specific to a particular plugin, but I'm not sure we'll get there in
> 3.0.
>
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +1 to all of the core stuff. Thank you for writing it up.
>>
>> For the pulp_rpm case +0 to what you had written. I had imagined it with
>> a slightly different example, but I think in practice it's almost the same.
>>
>> pip install pulp_rpm
>> from pulp_rpm import anything
>>
>> As an aside, I'm hoping that plugins only have to provide a server
>> package and that by installing it on the server the CLI will know about the
>> additional command set somehow. If so this would avoid plugin writers
>> having to make additional pulp_rpm_common and pulp_rpm_cli pip packages. If
>> we can't do that then I would think the pip and import for a plugin like
>> RPM would be:
>>
>> pip install pulp_rpm
>> pip install pulp_rpm_common
>> pip install pulp_rpm_cli
>>
>> from pulp_rpm import anything
>> from pulp_rpm import cli
>> from pulp_rpm import common
>>
>> Does ^ make sense? Is that similar or different to how others imagined
>> it? It's slightly different than the example given by @mrhivnak, but in
>> practice I don't think it is different.
>>
>> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Daniel Alley <dalley at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Jeff Ortel <jortel at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1, This sounds good to me.
>>>>
>>>> On 05/11/2017 10:59 AM, Michael Hrivnak wrote:
>>>> > We had a brainstorm session today to re-evaluate the
>>>> previously-identified options, and try to come up with
>>>> > some new ones. None of the previously-identified options had enough
>>>> support to be chosen. See the thread "PyPI
>>>> > names for Pulp3" for background.
>>>> >
>>>> > To re-cap, we are focused on two related questions:
>>>> >
>>>> > 1. What python namespace should Pulp use, since we cannot continue to
>>>> use "pulp"?
>>>> >
>>>> > 2. What PyPI package names should we use?
>>>> >
>>>> > I pitched an idea for 1 that everyone on the call liked, which is
>>>> "pulpcore". It could alternatively be
>>>> > "pulp_core", although my pinky finger prefers the former. The group
>>>> of roughly 10 people who participated in
>>>> > the discussion are recommending "pulpcore" for consideration as the
>>>> python namespace to replace "pulp". Please
>>>> > add your feedback to this thread.
>>>> >
>>>> > "core" is likable because it implies a plugin architecture. It's
>>>> similar to the word "platform" that we've
>>>> > used extensively, but shorter (which people liked), and perhaps
>>>> slightly more descriptive (which people also
>>>> > liked). Example:
>>>> >
>>>> > from pulpcore import streamer
>>>> >
>>>> > We discussed renaming what is currently "pulp.platform" to something
>>>> more descriptive. "platform" is a word
>>>> > that's been with us a long time, but it's worth re-considering,
>>>> especially if we shift to a similar word such
>>>> > as "core". "pulpcore.platform" seems awkward.
>>>> >
>>>> > A proposal is "pulpcore.apps", since that code is all directly
>>>> related to the celery app and django app.
>>>> >
>>>> > Python namespaces would include:
>>>> >
>>>> > pulpcore.apps
>>>> > pulpcore.cli
>>>> > pulpcore.common
>>>> > pulpcore.plugin
>>>> > pulpcore.streamer
>>>> >
>>>> > For python package names, they would look something like this:
>>>> >
>>>> > pip install pulpcore
>>>> > pip install pulpcore_cli
>>>> > pip install pulpcore_streamer
>>>> > pip install pulpcore_common
>>>> >
>>>> > Plugins would continue to use their existing namespace and package
>>>> names, with whatever variations are
>>>> > appropriate in Pulp 3. For example:
>>>> >
>>>> > import pulp_rpm.plugins
>>>> > pip install pulp_rpm_plugins
>>>> >
>>>> > Thoughts? Those of you who were part of the discussion, please chime
>>>> in with any additional points you'd like
>>>> > to highlight.
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> >
>>>> > Michael Hrivnak
>>>> >
>>>> > Principal Software Engineer, RHCE
>>>> >
>>>> > Red Hat
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>> > Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Michael Hrivnak
>
> Principal Software Engineer, RHCE
>
> Red Hat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20170515/3bce9acb/attachment.htm>