[Pulp-dev] python namespace proposal

Wed May 17 18:45:27 UTC 2017

I also am not 100% on this decision, so this is an excellent question.

* pip naturally transforms the underscore to a hyphen which causes some
folks [0] to believe it won't work unless hyphens are used. In my testing,
it does still work with PyPI because PyPI treats an _ and a - as the same
character when looking up names. A stack overflow post that I read (and
can't find now) suggested that the transformation of pip is doing was done
to maintain compatibility with more Python packaging types. I think the
concern is that if pip was fetching from something other than PyPI which
doesn't provide that mapping feature pip's translation would cause the user
to require the '-e' option which is more work.

* The dashes seem to be a more popular convention [1]

* We still won't have a one-for-one matching in many places even if we do
use hyphens. For example pulp_rpm_cli would actually be providing
pulp_rpm.cli.

I'm +0 on hypens mainly on readability and the inability for us to actually
have consistency. What do you think?

[0]:
https://pybuilder.github.io/documentation/external_plugins.html#.WRyX_zcpCV4
[1]: https://gist.github.com/gene1wood/9472a9d0dffce1a56d6e796afc6539b8

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Michael Hrivnak <mhrivnak at redhat.com>
wrote:

> Our python package names currently all have underscores. For example:
>
> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/blob/2.13-release/plugins/setup.py#L6
>
> Are we thinking of moving to hyphens for a particular reason? I could be
> persuaded, but consistency is certainly nice between the python package
> name and the python namespace.
>
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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_eOefpHkwtxm1YXgjA
>>> ypGHW826Ogt5Z3Us4elg-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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> 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/cdf32313/attachment.htm>