[Grok-dev] Re: Salt & z3c.autoinclude
faassen at startifact.com
Tue Mar 25 08:06:34 EDT 2008
Ethan Jucovy wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Martijn Faassen <faassen at startifact.com
> <mailto:faassen at startifact.com>> wrote:
> > We need to distinguish auto-inclusion from loading up plugins.
> > Auto-inclusion means automatically also loading the ZCML of that
> > dependency.
> I think this terminology is contributing to the confusion. From a new
> user's perspective I think "auto-inclusion" would seem to describe both
> functions of the package: whether it is loading ZCML from dependencies
> or plugins, the package is performing the same task of automatically
> including packages without any explicit per-package <include>
> statement. Perhaps we should disambiguate these and refer explicitly to
> "including dependencies" and "including plugins" throughout?
You're right, I will use 'including dependencies' instead of just
'auto-inclusion' from now on.
> include.py to dependency.py, IncludeFinder to DependencyFinder, etc.)
> Martijn, I'm sure you have a strong opinion here -- how would you feel
> about renaming the ``<autoinclude>`` directive to something less
> ambiguous like ``<includeDependencies>``, symmetric to
> ``<includePlugins>``? (I'd love to think of a shorter word than
> "dependency" for the directive but I'm drawing a blank...)
+1. There's still time to change the Grok trunk/grokproject too once the
new z3c.autoinclude is released. I think the longer directive name is
fine; people aren't going to type it a lot anyway.
> More importantly though, the fact that the left-hand side is ignored
> entirely leaves plenty of room for a future syntax extension there which
> specifies a ZCML starting point, which would make the above example
> rather more useful. But it seems we're all in agreement to leave this
> alone for now and wait for a real-world use case to (potentially) come up.
Thanks for the analysis here, and +1 to wait until a real-world use case
> Anyway, that's about it for the update. If anyone's really interested
> in the inner workings, I refactored out a common base class
> ``DistributionManager`` which the ``IncludeFinder`` and ``PluginFinder``
> both extend. There's some highly questionable makeshift adaptation of
> distribution objects and strings going on there which I'm half-tempted
> to formalize with zope.component and zope.interface but that may be
> overkill, I'm not really sure.
As long as it stays inside the package and has no pluggability concerns,
makeshift is fine for now, I think.
I'll try to give it a code review soon; please give me a reminder if you
don't hear anything!
Thanks very much for this excellent work, Ethan!
More information about the Grok-dev