[Distutils] Adding entry points into Distutils ?

Doug Hellmann doug.hellmann at gmail.com
Wed May 6 20:07:52 CEST 2009


On May 6, 2009, at 1:46 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:

> 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.

That's pretty much what I expected.  It feels a little messy to have  
plugins exposing "internals" like that but not so much so that I  
propose we don't allow it. The ":" syntax seems like the right way to  
go.



More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list