[Python-Dev] Another approach for the import mechanism

[Gustavo Niemeyer]

> Yes, but I don't have to clutter my disk for that.

/usr/lib/python2.2 already exists, doesn't it? That's probably one
of the few __init__.zip we'd ever see, since complete packages
would certainly be a majority. OTOH, with the current implementation,
the standard library is probably the only compressed package we'll
ever see.

That's just my opinion, of course, and I hope to be wrong.

> > - Don't have to change path to use compressed packages (at least
> >   not if you want to provide compressed packages, individual
> >   compressed modules or the standard library).
> 
> I thought you just explained that I will need to change the path to
> provide a compressed standard library, to point to a directory that
> contains an __init__.zip.

No, I didn't. The compressed library would be in /usr/lib/python2.2,
which is already in the path.

> > - Don't have to specify the compression type hardcoded.
> 
> I don't understand that remark. If I have a zipfile, I surely must
> install a zipfile hook in your approach also - a .tar.bz2 hook won't
> be able to load the zipfile, no?

What I mean is:

sys.path = ["/usr/lib/python2.2/stdlib.zip"]

vs.

sys.path = ["/usr/lib/python2.2"]

> > - Allows one to ship a package inside a zip file, without asking
> >   the user to change his path, and without hacking the package.
> > 
> > - Allows one to compress a single file (foobar.py.bz2).
> 
> This is really the same issue: If you had a mechanism to import a
> module from a .py.bz2 file, you could use the same mechanism to import
> a package (or subpackage) from a .zip file. While I think this might
> be desirable, I also think it was never the goal of PEP 273 to provide
> such a facility.

My purpose differs from what is in PEP 273, for sure.

Anyway, I'd just like to expose the idea. If everybody disagrees, we
can safely forget it now.

-- 
Gustavo Niemeyer

[ 2AAC 7928 0FBF 0299 5EB5  60E2 2253 B29A 6664 3A0C ]