On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:36:38 +0100, Zygmunt Krynicki zygmunt.krynicki@linaro.org wrote:
For the past few weeks I've been consistently using namespace packages (like zope does if you are familiar with that) to streamline LAVA APIs. From the end user's point of view there is no difference, for developers it is a bit easier as everything comes from a nested lava package, like this:
from lava.serial.console import xxx from lava.utils.data_tables.backends import ...
Technically this means that any python package (thing with a setup.py file) can add modules to a shared "lava" namespace. Currently I've setup two namespaces: lava. and lava.utils. Eventually I'd like to move each lava module there (after a grace period, with possible eternal backwards compatibility modules). Unless there is a strong voice against adopting this pattern across all new code I'd like to request this to be the standard way of writing new modules.
I like the idea, but in the past the implementation of namespace packages has always seemed like a hack. The fact that we're no longer providing debian packages probably helps here. I don't think s/_/./ makes much difference one way or the other :-)
For some tips/guides on how to do this please refer to the following resources: [1], [2], [3], also, you can look at lava-serial and lava-server (the new parts)
Cheers, mwh