I thought the PEP actually covered it pretty well: - if you don't want to worry about name conflicts for every module, pick *one* short top level namespace for your group and use that - for shared modules, use the top level namespace with PyPI as the name registry It's reasonable advice when coupled with the "avoid more than two levels of nesting - when tempted by this, split out some peer modules" elsewhere in the doc.

On 27 June 2012 12:34, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 21:19:57 +1000 Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I thought the PEP actually covered it pretty well: - if you don't want to worry about name conflicts for every module, pick *one* short top level namespace for your group and use that - for shared modules, use the top level namespace with PyPI as the name registry

That's not very clear to me when reading the PEP. For example, one of the items in the "overview" is "use top-level namespace for ownership". I don't think it should be, unless we want to promote such a practice.

I agree. I only skimmed the PEP, but even on a skimming, I got the impression that it was promoting the use of namespaces for ownership, in a Java-like way. The part Nick quoted is substantially more reasonable (assuming that's a direct quote, rather than Nick's summarisation) but the principle should be made clear right at the top. I'd say that a headline item should be something like; Using namespaces: - "Flat is better than nested" - where possible, use a single top-level name for your package (check on PyPI that the name you choose isn't in use). - Where you expect to have multiple packages all relating to the same top-level functionality, it may make sense to use a single top-level namespace package, and put your packages underneath that. - There should never be a need to use more than one level of namespace (if you think there is, you should probably promote each of the level-2 namespaces.to the top level). - Namespaces (and package names) should always be based on functionality, never on ownership[1]. Personal or private code doesn't need to follow these guidelines, but be aware that personal code often ends up more widely used than originally envisaged... [1] Sorry, Barry. There clearly needs to be an exception for the flufl namespace :-) Paul.

On 2012-06-27, at 10:57 AM, Paul Moore wrote:

Generally, the impression I get is that the PEP is recommending more levels of nesting than I would agree with: But it's hard to be sure, because the concept of nesting feels a bit overloaded. The key for me is that generally, I like to be able to type "import X" where X is not a dotted name, and then refer to X.x1, X.x2, etc. I'd call that no levels of nesting, to be honest. For complex stuff, subpackages ("import X.Y") might be needed, but that's rare (and even then, key names should be exposed directly from X).

Why instead of writing 'import project' you don't want to write 'from acme import project'? With python adoption (enterprise too) growing, we will inevitably find out that one single namespace (PyPI) is not enough, and name collisions will become a frequent headache. - Yury

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:53:47 +0200, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Beno=EEt_Bryon?= <benoit@marmelune.net> wrote:

Le 27/06/2012 22:08, Yury Selivanov a écrit :

...

With python adoption (enterprise too) growing, we will inevitably find out that one single namespace (PyPI) is not enough, and name collisions will become a frequent headache.

* on Github, people work in a user space. All projects are managed under the user account. Groups and companies can use organization accounts. This scheme seems popular and comfortable.

* on Github, people can fork projects. Project names are not unique, but "user/organization+project name" is unique. It seems to work well.

* sometimes, forks become more popular than original projects. Sometimes original projects are abandoned and several forks are active.

* Notice that distinct projects (i.e. not forks) can have the same name, provided they are owned by distinct users.

That is completely irrelevant. The top level name in the github case isolates the forks only. It has nothing to do with the organization of the *software*, only the *forks*. Within the fork, the software itself retains the same name...that's the whole point. --David

Le 27/06/2012 13:34, Antoine Pitrou a écrit :

Similarly, I think the section about private projects ("Private (including closed-source) projects use a namespace") should be removed. It is not our duty to promote naming standards for private (i.e. internal) projects. The intention in the proposed PEP is to promote standards for general Python usage, which implicitely includes both public and private use.

The proposed PEP tries to explain how the conventions apply in most use cases. Public and private scopes are mentioned explicitely because they were identified as valuable use cases. Here are some reasons why the "private code" use case has been identified as valuable: * New Python developers (or more accurately new distribution authors) may wonder "What makes a good name?", even if they are working in a private area. Guidelines covering private code would be welcome. * At work, I already had discussions about naming patterns for closed source projects. These discussions consumed some energy made the team focus on some "less valuable" topics. We searched for an official convention and didn't find one. We made choices but none of us was really satisfied about it. An external arbitration from a trusted authority would have been welcome, even if we were making closed-source software. * As Paul said, "personal code often ends up more widely used than originally envisaged". So following the convention from the start may help. * Here, the PEP already covers (or tries to) most public code use cases. It's quite easy to extend it to private code. I feel drawbacks are negligible compared to potential benefits. .. note:: IMHO, main drawback is "read this long document". * Isn't it obvious that, at last, people do what they want to in private code? In fact, they also do in public code. I mean the document is an informational PEP. It recommends to apply conventions but the actual choice is left to developers. That said, would the changes below improve the document? * Keep the parts about private and closed-source code, but add a note to insist on "in private code, you obviously do what you want to" and "be aware that personal code often ends up more widely used than originally envisaged". * At the beginning of the document, add a section like http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/#a-foolish-consistency-is-the-hobgob... Another option would have been to deal with "general Python code" and don't mention "public" and "private" areas, i.e. implicitely cover both. I haven't followed this way because it is implicit.

Also, I don't see what's so important about using your company's name as a top-level namespace. You don't need it for conflict avoidance: you can just as well use distinctive project names.

Using company's name as top-level namespace has been proven a good practice: * avoids clashes and confusion with public projects, i.e. don't create a "cms" private project because there could be a "cms" project on PyPI. * makes it easy to release the code as open-source: don't change the project name. * if there is no reason at all for the project to contain the company name (i.e. the project is not specific to the company), why not realeasing it as open source? (with a one-level name) Using company's name is not the only option. But, as far as I know, it fits most use cases, which is enough (and required) for a convention. Another option is to use any arbitrary name as top-level namespace. You can. If an arbitrary name seems obvious to you, feel free to use it. But, in most cases, company's name is an obvious choice. So, would you appreciate a change so that: * company name is recommended as a best practice. * but any arbitrary name can be used. Could be something in: 1. "For private projects, use company name (or any unique arbitrary name) as top-level namespace". 2. "For private projects, use any arbitrary name (company name is generally a good choice) as top-level namespace". 3. "For private projects, use a top-level namespace (company name is generally a good choice, but you can use any unique arbitrary name)." Benoit

On 06/28/2012 06:36 AM, Benoît Bryon wrote:

Le 27/06/2012 13:34, Antoine Pitrou a écrit :

...

Similarly, I think the section about private projects ("Private (including closed-source) projects use a namespace") should be removed. It is not our duty to promote naming standards for private (i.e. internal) projects. The intention in the proposed PEP is to promote standards for general Python usage, which implicitely includes both public and private use.

The proposed PEP tries to explain how the conventions apply in most use cases. Public and private scopes are mentioned explicitely because they were identified as valuable use cases.

Here are some reasons why the "private code" use case has been identified as valuable:

* New Python developers (or more accurately new distribution authors) may wonder "What makes a good name?", even if they are working in a private area. Guidelines covering private code would be welcome.

* At work, I already had discussions about naming patterns for closed source projects. These discussions consumed some energy made the team focus on some "less valuable" topics. We searched for an official convention and didn't find one. We made choices but none of us was really satisfied about it. An external arbitration from a trusted authority would have been welcome, even if we were making closed-source software.

* As Paul said, "personal code often ends up more widely used than originally envisaged". So following the convention from the start may help.

* Here, the PEP already covers (or tries to) most public code use cases. It's quite easy to extend it to private code. I feel drawbacks are negligible compared to potential benefits.

.. note:: IMHO, main drawback is "read this long document".

* Isn't it obvious that, at last, people do what they want to in private code? In fact, they also do in public code. I mean the document is an informational PEP. It recommends to apply conventions but the actual choice is left to developers.

That said, would the changes below improve the document?

* Keep the parts about private and closed-source code, but add a note to insist on "in private code, you obviously do what you want to" and "be aware that personal code often ends up more widely used than originally envisaged".

* At the beginning of the document, add a section like

http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/#a-foolish-consistency-is-the-hobgob...

Another option would have been to deal with "general Python code" and don't mention "public" and "private" areas, i.e. implicitely cover both. I haven't followed this way because it is implicit.

...

Also, I don't see what's so important about using your company's name as a top-level namespace. You don't need it for conflict avoidance: you can just as well use distinctive project names.

Using company's name as top-level namespace has been proven a good practice:

* avoids clashes and confusion with public projects, i.e. don't create a "cms" private project because there could be a "cms" project on PyPI.

* makes it easy to release the code as open-source: don't change the project name.

* if there is no reason at all for the project to contain the company name (i.e. the project is not specific to the company), why not realeasing it as open source? (with a one-level name)

Using company's name is not the only option. But, as far as I know, it fits most use cases, which is enough (and required) for a convention.

Another option is to use any arbitrary name as top-level namespace. You can. If an arbitrary name seems obvious to you, feel free to use it. But, in most cases, company's name is an obvious choice.

So, would you appreciate a change so that:

* company name is recommended as a best practice. * but any arbitrary name can be used.

Could be something in:

1. "For private projects, use company name (or any unique arbitrary name) as top-level namespace".

2. "For private projects, use any arbitrary name (company name is generally a good choice) as top-level namespace".

3. "For private projects, use a top-level namespace (company name is generally a good choice, but you can use any unique arbitrary name)."

It's probably always a reasonable idea to use a brand-prefixed namespace for *private* packages but in my experience it's almost always a bad idea to publish any set of otherwise-unrelated packages that share a branded namespace prefix to PyPI. I know this because I've been involved with it at least twice with "zope." and "repoze." brands/namespaces. The meaning of both of those namespaces has become soft over time and both now mean basically "this code was created by a group of people" instead of "this code is useful under a circumstance or for a purpose". Those namespaces are both the moral equivalent of a "garbage barge" class in development: code related to the namespace might do anything ("zope" now means a company and two completely different application servers; "repoze" never really meant anything, it was always a pure brand). People typically look for code on PyPI that solves a problem, and branding in namespacing there is usually confusing. E.g. there are many highly-general useful things in both the zope. and repoze. namespace packages, but people are skittish about the meaning of the namespaces and tend to look for a "more generic" solution. They are often right to do so. Putting a package in a "garbage barge" namespace does make it easy to avoid conflicts when publishing to PyPI, but it also makes it easy to avoid doing other release management tasks like creating good docs and making sure your package doesn't depend inappropriately on other unrelated same-namespace packages. And even if a particular distribution from a namespace has great docs and great release management practices, it's often the case that the distribution is ignored by potential consumers because it's just too hard to wade through the meaning of the branding. So I'd suggest that if the namespace represents a brand, the brand should be related to a concrete bit of software (e.g. django, pyramid) rather than a project or a company to avoid the fate of the above-mentioned namespace. At least for *public* releases of software; for private ones it matters a lot less. - C

Chris McDonough wrote:

People typically look for code on PyPI that solves a problem, and branding in namespacing there is usually confusing. E.g. there are many highly-general useful things in both the zope

When I search PyPI I ignore anything with djange, zope, etc., as I have zero interest in pulling in a bunch of unrelated packages that I don't need. If some of these pieces are truly stand-alone it would be nice if they were presented that way. ~Ethan~

Let's try to summarize answers about top-level namespace with use cases and examples... I hope I understood them well... About "yes" or "no" meaning: yes It fits the (work-in-progress) convention. You would recommend it. no You wouldn't recommend the naming pattern for *new* projects (we can't require existing projects to be renamed). ===== Project is standalone (doesn't mean "have no dependencies"), released on PyPI: * only one-level name is recommended, no namespace package * yes: sphinx, flask, lettuce * no: zc.rst2 (brand name is superfluous) ===== Project is made of several subprojects which are not standalone, released on PyPI: * a namespace package is recommended * the top-level namespace is functional: projects in namespace make a bigger project. They are not designed to work as standalone components. * yes: ? Have you examples of such a use case? * no: plone.app.* (too many levels) ===== Project is related to another one (i.e. kind of contrib), released on PyPI: * note: there is a difference between "related to another project" and "depends on another project". As an example, Fabric depends on ssh, but is not a contrib of it. * choice depends on conventions of related project * if there is no specific convention, a namespace package is recommended * the top-level namespace is functional: projects in namespace have a common characteristic, they are specific to something, usually another project. * yes: collective.castle * yes because of explicit specific convention: sphinxcontrib-feed, Flask-Admin * no: castle, feed, admin, Plone.recipe.command (not specific to Plone, in fact related to zc.buildout) * Use of additional metadata is highly recommended (keywords, topic::framework) ===== Project is standalone, but really experimental (i.e. name could change, not sure to publish version 0.2), want to make it public: * I want to share code, but I am really not sure it will live long. I don't want to "block" a name slot. * use a one-level name, as any standalone public project * publish it on gitorious/github/bitbucket accounts * don't register it with PyPI until it becomes a bit mature? i.e. start with code repositories only? * not valuable enough to be mentioned in PEP 423? Maybe not in the scope of PEP 423. I mean it is more about "what kind of projects we register with PyPI" than "which name to choose". ===== Project is standalone, but specific to my own usage, i.e. I use it as personal software. It's not private because I want to share the code (maybe someone will like it). * use an one-level name, as any standalone public project * publish it on code repositories. * register it with PyPI? if only ready to maintain and document? * not valuable enough to be mentioned in PEP 423? Maybe not in the scope of PEP 423. I mean it is more about "what kind of projects we register with PyPI" than "which name to choose". ===== .. note:: conventions for private projects are provided as informational guidelines. Project is private, made of only one component: * a namespace package is recommended (not sure for this rule, could be an one-level project name) * the top-level name can be any unique arbitrary value. The company name could be a good choice. * the top-level namespace is not functional, but represents an ownership: the project is specific to the customer/product. It contains closed-source parts. * yes: mycustomer.website * no: mycustomerwebsite, website ===== Project is private, made of several components: * a namespace package is recommended * the top-level name can be any unique arbitrary value. The company name could be a good choice. * the top-level namespace is not functional, but represents a common background: as an example, all components are specific to the customer/product. * yes: mywebsite.blog, mywebsite.auth, mywebsite.calendar (where these components could be standalone WSGI applications, but contain specific stuff related to the customer/product). * no: blog, auth, calendar ===== Do you prefer the examples above to the "top-level namespace relates to code ownership" rule? Do you see other use cases? Benoit

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:35:24 +0200 Benoît Bryon <benoit@marmelune.net> wrote:

Would you appreciate a reordering? Could be something like that:

1. adopt specific conventions if any.

2. avoid name collisions.

3. you'd better use flat names.

4. you'd better make it easy to find and remember the project.

5. you'd better use a single name and distribute only one package at a time

6. follow rules about syntax (PEP 8)

7. once you are done, state about specific choices, if any. This is the complement of point 1.

8. if in doubt, ask.

Yes, that would be better. I think the PEP also needs to spell out the rationale better. Also, reminding the distinction between modules, packages and namespace packages could be useful to the reader, especially if it's supposed to end up in the documentation. Regards Antoine.

In your first plone example you first use plone.app.content, but then present the directory structure of plone.app.command. Apart from that, the PEP seems legit to me, contentwise. I think some parts are clumsily formulated, but IMO rewriting these parts wouldn't even decrease the text's length or improve readability. -- Markus (from phone) "Benoît Bryon" <benoit@marmelune.net> wrote:

Hi!

Attached is a an updated proposal for PEP 423. You can also find it online at https://gist.github.com/benoitbryon/2815051

I am attending at EuroPython 2013 in Florence. Isn't it a great opportunity to get feedback and discuss about a PEP? I registered an open-space session and a lightning-talk today!

Some notes about the update...

The main point that was discussed in the previous proposal was the "top-level namespace relates to code ownership rule". Here is a quote from Antoine Pitrou:

Le 27/06/2012 12:50, Antoine Pitrou a écrit :

...

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:08:45 +0200 Benoît Bryon<benoit@marmelune.net> wrote:

...

Hi,

Here is an informational PEP proposal: http://hg.python.org/peps/file/52767ab7e140/pep-0423.txt

Could you review it for style, consistency and content? There is one Zen principle this PEP is missing:

Flat is better than nested.

This PEP seems to promote the practice of having a top-level namespace denote ownership. I think it should do the reverse: promote meaningful top-level packages (e.g. "sphinx") as standard practice, and allow an exception for when a piece of software is part of a larger organizational body.

So, the main change in the proposal I'm sending today is the removal of

this "ownership" rule. It has been replaced by "Use a single namespace (except special cases)".

Some additional changes have been performed, such as removal of some sections about "opportunity" or "promote migrations". I also added a "Rationale" section where I pointed out some issues related to naming.

The PEP has been marked as "deferred" because it was inactive and it is

partly related to PEP 426. I left this deferred state.

I am aware that some links in the PEP are broken... I will fix them later. My very first motivation is to get feedback about the "big" changes in the PEP. I wanted the update to be sent before EuroPython-2013's open-space session. I guess a detailed review would be nice anyway, for links, style, grammar...

Also, I wonder whether the PEP could be shortened or not. Sometimes I cannot find straightforward words to explain things, so perhaps someone

with better skills in english language could help. Or maybe some parts,

such as the "How to rename a project" section, could be moved in other documents.

Regards,

Benoît

------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/markus%40unterwaditzer.net