[Import-SIG] New PEP draft: "Simplified Package Layout and Partitioning"
pje at telecommunity.com
Wed Jul 13 19:11:48 CEST 2011
I'd appreciate any questions, problems, clarifications, concerns,
etc. so we can clean this up before we run it past Python-Dev. There
are also a couple of "XXX" comments down in the "Implementation
Notes" section, with open questions we need to nail down. Mostly,
though, this is looking... pretty doable, actually.
Title: Simplified Package Layout and Partitioning
Author: P.J. Eby
Type: Standards Track
This PEP proposes an enhancement to Python's package importing
* Surprise users of other languages less,
* Make it easier to convert a module into a package, and
* Support dividing packages into separately installed components
(ala "namespace packages", as described in PEP 382)
The proposed enhancements do not change the semantics of any
currently-importable directory layouts, but make it possible for
packages to use a simplified directory layout (that is not importable
However, the proposed changes do NOT add any performance overhead to
the importing of existing modules or packages, and performance for the
new directory layout should be about the same as that of previous
"namespace package" solutions (such as ``pkgutil.extend_path()``).
"Most packages are like modules. Their contents are highly
interdependent and can't be pulled apart. [However,] some
packages exist to provide a separate namespace. ... It should
be possible to distribute sub-packages or submodules of these
[namespace packages] independently."
-- Jim Fulton, shortly before the release of Python 2.3 _
When new users come to Python from other languages, they are often
confused by Python's packaging semantics. At Google, for example,
Guido received complaints from "a large crowd with pitchforks" _
that the requirement for packages to contain an ``__init__`` module
was a "misfeature", and should be dropped.
In addition, users coming from languages like Java or Perl are
sometimes confused by a difference in Python's import path searching.
In most other languages that have a path mechanism to Python's
``sys.path``, a package is merely a namespace that contains modules
or classes, and can thus be spread across multiple directories in
the language's path. In Perl, for instance, a ``Foo::Bar`` module
will be searched for in ``Foo/`` subdirectories all along the module
include path, not just in the first such subdirectory found.
Worse, this is not just a problem for new users: it prevents *anyone*
from easily splitting a package into separately-installable
components. In Perl terms, it would be as if every possible ``Net::``
module on CPAN had to be bundled up and shipped in a single tarball!
For that reason, various workarounds for this latter limitation exist,
circulated under the term "namespace packages". The Python standard
library has provided one such workaround since Python 2.3 (via the
``pkgutil.extend_path()`` function), and the "setuptools" package
provides another (via ``pkg_resources.declare_namespace()``).
The workarounds themselves, however, fall prey to a *third* issue with
Python's way of laying out packages in the filesystem.
Because a package *must* contain an ``__init__`` module, any attempt
to distribute modules for that package must necessarily include that
``__init__`` module, if those modules are to be importable.
However, the very fact that each distribution of modules for a package
must contain this (duplicated) ``__init__`` module, means that OS
vendors who package up these module distributions must somehow handle
the conflict caused by several distributions installing that
``__init__`` module to the same location in the filesystem.
This led to the proposing of PEP 382 ("Namespace Packages") - a way
to signal to Python's import machinery that a directory was
importable, using unique filenames per module distribution.
However, there was more than one downside to this approach.
Performance for all import operations would be affected, and the
process of designating a package became even more complex. New
terminology had to be invented to explain the solution, and so on.
As terminology discussions continued on the Import-SIG, it soon became
apparent that the main reason it was so difficult to explain the
concepts related to "namespace packages" was because Python's
current way of handling packages is somewhat underpowered, when
compared to other languages.
That is, in other popular languages with package systems, no special
term is needed to describe "namespace packages", because *all*
packages generally behave in the desired fashion.
Rather than being an isolated single directory with a special marker
module (as in Python), packages in other languages are typically just
a *union of appropriately-named directories* across the *entire*
import or inclusion path.
In Perl, for example, the module ``Foo`` is always found in a
``Foo.pm`` file, and a module ``Foo::Bar`` is always found in a
``Foo/Bar.pm`` file. (In other words, there is One Obvious Way to
find the location of a particular module.)
This is because Perl considers a module to be *different* from a
package: the package is purely a *namespace* in which other modules
may reside, and is only *coincidentally* the name of a module as well.
In current versions of Python, however, the module and the package are
more tightly bound together. ``Foo`` is always a module -- whether it
is found in ``Foo.py`` or ``Foo/__init__.py`` -- and it is tightly
linked to its submodules (if any), which *must* reside in the exact
same directory where the ``__init__.py`` was found.
On the positive side, this design choice means that a package is quite
self-contained, and can be installed, copied, etc. as a unit just by
performing an operation on the package's root directory.
On the negative side, however, it is non-intuitive for beginners, and
requires a more complex step to turn a module into a package. If
``Foo`` begins its life as ``Foo.py``, then it must be moved and
renamed to ``Foo/__init__.py``.
Conversely, if you intend to create a ``Foo.Bar`` module from the
start, but have no particular module contents to put in ``Foo``
itself, then you have to create an empty and seemingly-irrelevant
``Foo/__init__.py`` file, just so that ``Foo.Bar`` can be imported.
(And these issues don't just confuse newcomers to the language,
either: they annoy many experienced developers as well.)
So, after some discussion on the Import-SIG, this PEP was created
as an alternative to PEP \382, in an attempt to solve *all* of the
above problems, not just the "namespace package" use cases.
And, as a delightful side effect, the solution proposed in this PEP
does not affect the import performance of ordinary modules or
self-contained (i.e. ``__init__``-based) packages.
In the past, various proposals have been made to allow more intuitive
approaches to package directory layout. However, most of them failed
because of an apparent backward-compatibility problem.
That is, if the requirement for an ``__init__`` module were simply
dropped, it would open up the possibility for a directory named, say,
``string`` on ``sys.path``, to block importing of the standard library
Paradoxically, however, the failure of this approach does *not* arise
from the elimination of the ``__init__`` requirement!
Rather, the failure arises because the underlying approach takes for
granted that a package is just ONE thing, instead of two.
In truth, a package comprises two separate, but related entities: a
module (with its own, optional contents), and a *namespace* where
*other* modules or packages can be found.
In current versions of Python, however, the module part (found in
``__init__``) and the namespace for submodule imports (represented
by the ``__path__`` attribute) are both initialized at the same time,
when the package is first imported.
And, if you assume this is the *only* way to initialize these two
things, then there is no way to drop the need for an ``__init__``
module, while still being backwards-compatible with existing directory
After all, as soon as you encounter a directory on ``sys.path``
matching the desired name, that means you've "found" the package, and
must stop searching, right?
Well, not quite.
A Thought Experiment
Let's hop into the time machine for a moment, and pretend we're back
in the early 1990s, shortly before Python packages and ``__init__.py``
have been invented. But, imagine that we *are* familiar with
Perl-like package imports, and we want to implement a similar system
We'd still have Python's *module* imports to build on, so we could
certainly conceive of having ``Foo.py`` as a parent ``Foo`` module
for a ``Foo`` package. But how would we implement submodule and
Well, if we didn't have the idea of ``__path__`` attributes yet,
we'd probably just search ``sys.path`` looking for ``Foo/Bar.py``.
But we'd *only* do it when someone actually tried to *import*
NOT when they imported ``Foo``.
And *that* lets us get rid of the backwards-compatibility problem
of dropping the ``__init__`` requirement, back here in 2011.
Well, when we ``import Foo``, we're not even *looking* for ``Foo/``
directories on ``sys.path``, because we don't *care* yet. The only
point at which we care, is the point when somebody tries to actually
import a submodule or subpackage of ``Foo``.
That means that if ``Foo`` is a standard library module (for example),
and I happen to have a ``Foo`` directory on ``sys.path`` (without
an ``__init__.py``, of course), then *nothing breaks*. The ``Foo``
module is still just a module, and it's still imported normally.
Self-Contained vs. "Virtual" Packages
Of course, in today's Python, trying to ``import Foo.Bar`` will
fail if ``Foo`` is just a ``Foo.py`` module (and thus lacks a
So, this PEP proposes to *dynamically* create a ``__path__``, in the
case where one is missing.
That is, if I try to ``import Foo.Bar`` the proposed change to the
import machinery will notice that the ``Foo`` module lacks a
``__path__``, and will therefore try to *build* one before proceeding.
And it will do this by making a list of all the existing ``Foo/``
subdirectories of the directories listed in ``sys.path``.
If the list is empty, the import will fail with ``ImportError``, just
like today. But if the list is *not* empty, then it is saved in
a new ``Foo.__path__`` attribute, making the module a "virtual
That is, because it now has a valid ``__path__``, we can proceed
to import submodules or subpackages in the normal way.
Now, notice that this change does not affect "classic", self-contained
packages that have an ``__init__`` module in them. Such packages
already *have* a ``__path__`` attribute (initialized at import time)
so the import machinery won't try to create another one later.
This means that (for example) the standard library ``email`` package
will not be affected in any way by you having a bunch of unrelated
directories named ``email`` on ``sys.path``.
But it *does* mean that if you want to turn your ``Foo`` module into
a ``Foo`` package, all you have to do is add a ``Foo/`` directory
somewhere on ``sys.path``, and start adding modules to it.
But what if you only want a "namespace package"? That is, a package
that is *only* a namespace for various separately-distributed
submodules and subpackages?
For exmaple, if you're Zope Corporation, distributing dozens of
separate tools like ``zc.buildout``, each in packages under the ``zc``
namespace, you don't want to have to make and include an empty
``zc.py`` in every tool you ship. (And, if you're a Linux or other
OS vendor, you don't want to deal with the package conflicts created
by trying to install ten copies of ``zc.py`` to the same location!)
No problem. All we have to do is make one more minor tweak to the
import process: if the "classic" import process fails to find a
self-contained module or package (e.g., if ``import zc`` fails to find
a ``zc.py`` or ``zc/__init__.py``), then we once more try to build a
``__path__`` by searching for all the ``zc/`` directories on
``sys.path``, and putting them in a list.
If this list is empty, we raise ``ImportError``. But if it's
non-empty, we create an empty ``zc`` module, and put the list in
``zc.__path__``. Congratulations: ``zc`` is now a namespace-only,
"pure virtual" package! It has no module contents, but you can still
import submodules and subpackages from it, regardless of where they're
located on ``sys.path``.
(By the way, both of these additions to the import protocol (i.e. the
dynamically-added ``__path__``, and dynamically-created modules)
apply recursively to child packages, using the parent package's
``__path__`` in place of ``sys.path`` as a basis for generating a
child ``__path__``. This means that self-contained and virtual
packages can contain each other without limitation, with the caveat
that if you put a virtual package inside a self-contained one, it's
gonna have a really short ``__path__``!)
Backwards Compatibility and Performance
Notice that these two changes *only* affect import operations that
today would result in ``ImportError``. As a result, the performance
of imports that do not involve virtual packages is unaffected, and
potential backward compatibility issues are very restricted.
Today, if you try to import submodules or subpackages from a module
with no ``__path__``, it's an immediate error. And of course, if you
don't have a ``zc.py`` or ``zc/__init__.py`` somewhere on ``sys.path``
today, ``import zc`` would likewise fail.
Thus, the only potential backwards-compatibility issues are:
1. Tools that expect package directories to have an ``__init__``
module, that expect directories without an ``__init__`` module
to be unimportable, or that expect ``__path__`` attributes to be
static, will not recognize virtual packages as packages.
(In practice, this just means that tools will need updating to
support virtual packages, e.g. by using ``pkgutil.walk_modules()``
instead of using hardcoded filesystem searches.)
2. Code that *expects* certain imports to fail may now do something
unexpected. This should be fairly rare in practice, as most sane,
non-test code does not import things that are expected not to
The biggest likely exception to the above would be when a piece of
code tries to check whether some package is installed by importing
it. If this is done *only* by importing a top-level module (i.e., not
checking for a ``__version__`` or some other attribute), *and* there
is a directory of the same name as the sought-for package on
``sys.path`` somewhere, *and* the package is not actually installed,
then such code could perhaps be fooled into thinking a package is
installed that really isn't.
However, even in this case, the failure is more likely to be annoying
than damaging; in most cases, the code will simply fail a little later
on, when it actually tries to DO something with the imported (but
empty) module. (And code that checks for a ``__version__`` attribute
or the presence of some desired function, class, or module
in the package will not see such a false positive result in the
Meanwhile, tools that expect to locate packages and modules by
walking a directory tree can be updated to use the existing
``pkgutil.walk_modules()`` API, and tools that need to inspect
packages in memory should use the other APIs described in the
`Standard Library Changes/Additions`_ section below.
Two changes are made to the existing import process.
First, the built-in ``__import__`` function must not raise an
``ImportError`` when importing a submodule of a module with no
``__path__``. Instead, it must attempt to *create* a ``__path__``
attribute for the parent module, as described in `__path__ creation`_
Second, if searching ``sys.meta_path`` and ``sys.path`` (or a parent
package ``__path__``) fails to find a module, the import process must
also attempt to create a ``__path__`` attribute for the non-existent
module. If the attempt succeeds, an empty module is created and its
``__path__`` is set. Otherwise, importing fails.
In both of the above cases, if a non-empty ``__path__`` is created,
the name of the module whose ``__path__`` was created is added to
``sys.virtual_packages`` -- an initially-empty set of package names.
Conversely, if an empty ``__path__`` results, an ``ImportError``
is immediately raised, and the module is not created or changed, nor
is its name added to ``sys.virtual_packages``.
(This way, code that extends ``sys.path`` at runtime can find out
what virtual packages are currently imported, and thereby add any
new subdirectories to those packages' ``__path__`` attributes. See
`Standard Library Changes/Additions`_ below for more details.)
A virtual ``__path__`` is created by obtaining a PEP 302 "importer"
object for each of the path entries found in ``sys.path`` (for a
top-level module) or the parent ``__path__`` (for a submodule).
(Note: because ``sys.meta_path`` importers are not associated with
``sys.path`` or ``__path__`` entry strings, such importers do *not*
participate in this process.)
Each importer is checked for a ``get_subpath()`` method, and if
present, the method is called with the full name of the module the
``__path__`` is being constructed for. The return value is either
a string representing a package subdirectory, or ``None`` if no such
The strings returned by each importer are added to the ``__path__``
being built, in the same order as they are found. (``None`` values
and missing ``get_subpath()`` methods are simply skipped.)
In Python code, the algorithm would look something like this::
def get_virtual_path(modulename, parent_path=None):
if parent_path is None:
parent_path = sys.path
path = 
for entry in parent_path:
# Obtain a PEP 302 importer object - see pkgutil module
importer = pkgutil.get_importer(entry)
if hasattr(importer, 'get_subpath'):
subpath = importer.get_subpath(modulename)
if subpath is not None:
And a function like this one should be exposed in the standard
library as ``imp.get_virtual_path()``, so that people creating
``__import__`` replacements or ``sys.meta_path`` hooks can reuse it.
Standard Library Changes/Additions
The ``pkgutil`` module should be updated to handle this
specification appropriately, including any necessary changes to
``extend_path()``, ``iter_modules()``, etc. A new generic API for
calling ``get_subpath()`` on importers should be added as well.
Specifically the proposed changes and additions to ``pkgutil`` are:
* A new ``get_subpath(importer, fullname)`` generic function, allowing
implementations to be registered for existing importers.
* A new ``extend_virtual_paths(path_entry)`` function, to extend
existing, already-imported virtual packages' ``__path__`` attributes
to include any portions found in a new ``sys.path`` entry. This
function should be called by applications extending ``sys.path``
at runtime, e.g. when adding a plugin directory or an egg to the
The implementation of this function does a simple top-down traversal
of ``sys.virtual_packages``, and performs any necessary
``get_subpath()`` calls to identify what path entries need to
be added to each package's ``__path__``, given that `path_entry`
has been added to ``sys.path``. (Or, in the case of sub-packages,
adding a derived subpath entry, based on their parent namespace's
* A new ``iter_virtual_packages(parent='')`` function to allow
top-down traversal of virtual packages in ``sys.virtual_packages``,
by yielding the child virtual packages of `parent`. For example,
calling ``iter_virtual_packages("zope")`` might yield ``zope.app``
and ``zope.products`` (if they are imported virtual packages listed
in ``sys.virtual_packages``), but **not** ``zope.foo.bar``.
(This function is needed to implement ``extend_virtual_paths()``,
but is also potentially useful for other code that needs to inspect
imported virtual packages.)
* ``ImpImporter.iter_modules()`` should be changed to also detect and
yield the names of modules found in virtual packages.
In addition to the above changes, the ``zipimport`` importer should
have its ``iter_modules()`` implementation similarly changed. (Note:
current versions of Python implement this via a shim in ``pkgutil``,
so technically this is also a change to ``pkgutil``.)
Last, but not least, the ``imp`` module should expose the algorithm
described in the `__path__ creation`_ section above, as a
``get_virtual_path(modulename, parent_path=None)`` function, so that
creators of ``__import__`` replacements can use it.
For users, developers, and distributors of virtual packages:
* ``sys.virtual_packages`` is allowed to contain non-existent or
not-yet-imported package names; code that uses its contents should
not assume that every name in this set is also present in
``sys.modules`` or that importing the name will necessarily succeed.
* If you are changing a currently self-contained package into a
virtual one, it's important to note that you can no longer use its
``__file__`` attribute to locate data files stored in a package
directory. Instead, you must search ``__path__`` or use the
``__file__`` of a submodule adjacent to the desired files, or
of a self-contained subpackage that contains the desired files.
* XXX what is the __file__ of a "pure virtual" package? ``None``?
Some arbitrary string? The path of the first directory with a
trailing separator? No matter what we put, *some* code is
going to break, but the last choice might allow some code to
accidentally work. Is that good or bad?
For those implementing PEP \302 importer objects:
* Importers that support the ``iter_modules()`` method (used by
``pkgutil`` to locate importable modules and pacakges) and want to
add virtual package support should modify their ``iter_modules()``
method so that it discovers and lists virtual packages as well as
standard modules and packages. To do this, the importer should
simply list all immediate subdirectory names in its jurisdiction
that are valid Python identifiers.
XXX This might list a lot of not-really-packages. Should we
require importable contents to exist? If so, how deep do we
search, and how do we prevent e.g. link loops, or traversing onto
different filesystems, etc.? Ick.
* "Meta" importers (i.e., importers placed on ``sys.meta_path``) do
not need to implement ``get_subpath()``, because the method
is only called on importers corresponding to ``sys.path`` entries
and ``__path__`` entries. If a meta importer wishes to support
virtual packages, it must do so entirely within its own
Unfortunately, it is unlikely that any such implementation will be
able to merge its package subpaths with those of other meta
importers or ``sys.path`` importers, so the meaning of "supporting
virtual packages" for a meta importer is currently undefined!
(However, since the intended use case for meta importers is to
replace Python's normal import process entirely for some subset of
modules, and the number of such importers currently implemented is
quite small, this seems unlikely to be a big issue in practice.)
..  "namespace" vs "module" packages (mailing list thread)
..  "Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages"
This document has been placed in the public domain.
More information about the Import-SIG