[Python-Dev] Implementing PEP 382, Namespace Packages (original) (raw)

P.J. Eby pje at telecommunity.com
Sun May 30 09:40:37 CEST 2010

At 03:44 PM 5/29/2010 -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:

On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 12:29, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote: > Am 29.05.2010 21:06, schrieb P.J. Eby: >> >> At 08:45 PM 5/29/2010 +0200, Martin v. Löwis wrote: >>>> >>>> In it he says that PEP 382 is being deferred until it can address PEP >>>> 302 loaders. I can't find any follow-up to this. I don't see any >>>> discussion in PEP 382 about PEP 302 loaders, so I assume this issue was >>>> never resolved. Does it need to be before PEP 382 is implemented? Are we >>>> wasting our time by designing and (eventually) coding before this issue >>>> is resolved? >>> >>> Yes, and yes. >> >> Is there anything we can do to help regarding that? > > You could comment on the proposal I made back then, or propose a different > solution.

[sorry for the fundamental PEP questions, but I think PEP 382 came about while I was on my python-dev sabbatical last year] I have some questions about the PEP which might help clarify how to handle the API changes. For finders, their search algorithm is changed in a couple of ways. One is that modules are given priority over packages (is that intentional, Martin, or just an oversight?). Two, the package search requires checking for a .pth file on top of an init.py. This will change finders that could before simply do an existence check on an init "file" (or whatever the storage back-end happened to be) and make it into a list-and-search which one would hope wasn't costly, but in same cases might be if the paths to files is not stored in a hierarchical fashion (e.g. zip files list entire files paths in their TOC or a sqlite3 DB which uses a path for keys will have to list all keys, sort them to just the relevant directory, and then look for .pth or some such approach). Are we worried about possible performance implications of this search?

No. First, an importer would not be required to implement it in a precisely analagous way; you could have database entries or a special consolidated index in a zipfile, if you wanted to do it like that. (In practice, Python's zipimporter has a memory cache of the TOC, and a simple database index on paths would make a search for .pth's in a subdirectory trivial for the database case.)

I say no, but I just want to make sure people we are not and people are aware about the design shift required in finders. This entire worry would be alleviated if only .pth files named after the package were supported, much like *.pkg files in pkgutil.

Which would completely break one of the major use cases of the PEP, which is precisely to ensure that you can install two pieces of code to the same namespace without either one overwriting the other's files.

And then the search for the init.py begins on the newly modified path, which I assume ends with the first init found on path, but if no file is found it's okay and essentially an empty module with just module-specific attributes is used? In other words, can a .pth file replace an init file in delineating a package?

Yes.

Or is it purely additive? I assume the latter for compatibility reasons,

Nope. The idea is specifically to allow separately installed projects to create a package without overwriting any files (causing conflicts for system installers).

but the PEP says "a directory is considered a package if it either contains a file named init.py, or a file whose name ends with ".pth"" (emphasis mine). Otherwise I assume that the search will be done simply with ``os.path.isdir(os.path.join(syspathentry, toplevelpackagename)`` and all existing paths will be added to path. Will they come before or after the directory where the *.pth was found? And will any subsequent *.pth files found in other directories also be executed?

As for how "*" works, is this limited to top-level packages, or will sub-packages participate as well?

Sub-packages as well.

I assume the former, but it is not directly stated in the PEP. If the latter, is a dotted package name changed to ``os.sep.join(sypathentry, packagename.replace('".", os.sep)``?

For sys.pathhooks, I am assuming import will simply skip over passing that as it is a marker that path represents a namsepace package and not in any way functional. Although with sys.namespacepackages, is leaving the "*" in path truly necessary?

I'm going to leave these to Martin to answer.

For the search of paths to use to extend, are we limiting ourselves to actual file system entries on sys.path (as pkgutil does),

pkgutil doesn't have such a limitation, except in the case extend_path, and that limitation is one that PEP 382 intends to remove.

or do we want to support other storage back-ends? To do the latter I would suggest having a successful path discovery be when a finder can be created for the hypothetical directory from sys.pathhooks.

The downside to that is that NullImporter is the default importer, so you'd still have to special case it. It would make more sense to add to the PEP 302 protocols directly.

I'll shut up now and stop causing trouble. =)

May I suggest you take a look at the implementation draft in my other email? I realize in retrospect it doesn't handle init searching in precisely the order proposed by the PEP, but I'm not sure it would be that difficult to add. (It also needs to split the operation into find/load pieces, but that's also a straightforward mod: just defer the module loading until the end, and return a wrapper around the loader that finishes the process.)

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list