[Distutils] EasyInstall --> distutils command + setuptools enhancements?
ianb at colorstudy.com
Wed Jun 8 19:05:36 CEST 2005
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> As I move towards implementing features for EasyInsall like having
> distutils-style configuration files, and refactoring the 'main()' function
> for reusability and extension by other packages, I began to notice
> something: I was basically reinventing a distutils Command object.
Are you thinking solely about a two-level command? It's a little
confusing, because it seems like EasyInstall and distutils are kind of
separate, and I'm not clear what relation you are proposing.
If it's just that there be two levels to the command, just like in
distutils or cvs, among other commands, then yes, I think that's a good
idea, and I can imagine quite a few commands over time.
As for the specific implementation, I don't know that distutil's Command
is worth using if it's outdated.
> So what are the downsides to this, apart from needing to turn lots of
> little methods into entire Command subclasses? Well, I imagine it makes it
> harder for somebody to build-in the commands to non-distutils programs,
> unless there's an easy way to create and run the commands, like if I added
> a class method like 'invoke(**args)' to a base class, so that you could say
> stuff like 'package.download_url.invoke(url="whatever")' in order to call
> 'em from inside the program. I've already added something similar to the
> 'bdist_egg' comamnd called 'call_command(name,**args)', so that you can
> more easily invoke other commands as subroutines.
Would it make more sense to just keep the command-line interface down to
a thin wrapper around module-level functions?
Ian Bicking / ianb at colorstudy.com / http://blog.ianbicking.org
More information about the Distutils-SIG