[Distutils] Adding entry points into Distutils ?

P.J. Eby pje at telecommunity.com
Wed May 6 19:46:44 CEST 2009

At 10:59 AM 5/6/2009 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:

>On May 5, 2009, at 10:50 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
>>At 12:03 PM 5/6/2009 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
>>>I don't see any advantage, in the context of this discussion, to
>>>having an additional, incompatible naming for full-path-to-a-class.
>>Setuptools doesn't limit an entry point to being a class, function,
>>or other top-level name within a module.  It can be a method of a
>>class, or an attribute of an attribute.  The ':' removes any
>>ambiguity as to which part of the name is the module, and which
>>parts are attributes within that module.
>Is that level of complexity useful in practice?  I can understand how
>it came to be implemented, but is it actually used by any projects?

I use it; I'm not sure who else does.

The particular use case I have (and that's most likely to be shared) 
is that the calling app or framework wants a callable or function, 
but the providing app or library implements that callable as a 
classmethod for convenience.

More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list