[Web-SIG] more comments on Paste Deploy

Jim Fulton jim at zope.com
Mon Mar 5 16:02:42 CET 2007

On Mar 3, 2007, at 11:09 AM, Chad Whitacre wrote:
> > 1. Can we agree on a standard set of entry points so that WSGI
> > applications can be combined automatically?  I think Paste
> > Deploy provides at least good start on this.
> >
> > You haven't commented on the entry points defined by Paste
> > Deploy.  Do you have an opinion on adopting the entry-point API
> > defined by Paste Deploy?
> Ok, I need help: defining an entry point allows a plugin to  
> advertise that it can satisfy that entry point, but you still need  
> a configuration layer to actually wire it up, no?


> In which case:
>   1) What does "automatically" mean?

It means that you don't have to write Python code to connect  
applications, servers, and middleware.

>   2) Aren't we back to discussing config syntax?

No. Entry points can be used by a variety of configuration syntaxes  
and by Python code.

I should note that we can divide this discussion further, if we wish.

Paste Deploy defines APIs and entry points for advertising objects  
that provide those APIs.  The APIs are arguably the most essential  
thing to reuse from Paste Deploy.

Entry points add *a* mechanism to make those objects a bit more  
discoverable.  Arguably, specifying an application via:  
eggname#entrypointname doesn't provide much advantage over simply  
specifying the dotted path to an object in a module.  If there were  
more tools for browsing for and working with eggs, then I think entry  
points would provide greater advantages as they would allow the tools  
to guide someone deciding how to reuse an egg by telling them about  
the components available. Personally, I think that use of entry  
points makes sense in a situation like this.


Jim Fulton			mailto:jim at zope.com		Python Powered!
CTO 				(540) 361-1714			http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation	http://www.zope.com		http://www.zope.org

More information about the Web-SIG mailing list