[Pulp-dev] python namespace proposal

[Brian Bouterse]

I got some positive IRC feedback about the names in the doc, but nothing
via e-mail. I've added the PyPI names to be registered from the Google doc
to the ticket about registering them [0]. It needs to be groomed. I plan to
nominate it at sprint planning tomorrow.

[0]: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2444

-Brian

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com> wrote:

> 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_eOefpHkwtxm1YXgjAypGHW826Ogt5Z
> 3Us4elg-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/20170517/d70f1959/attachment.htm>