| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
On 5/17/12 4:38 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
I don't feel strongly about this -- I'm just following the example set by existing Nova code. Can you think of a corner case where loading it at import time would cause problems? Alternatively, can you think of a corner case where we would want a flag to be defined during the magic moment /between/ import time and the load callback?<snip>In the wikistatus plugin I notice that you modify the global FLAGS when wikistatus.py is imported. Is that the right time to do that, or should it happen during the on-load handler in the plugin class? Or maybe even in the plugin manager, which could ask the plugin for the new options and then modify FLAGS itself. It seems like lots of Nova code modifies FLAGS during import, but having an explicit trigger for that (rather than depending on import order) seems safer to me.
I can't think of a case for either, although I have the vague feeling that the latter is slightly more possible (if still improbable.)
If leaving in that option is free, then I'm all for it. I'm still a bit new to entry points... is the entry-point name a totally arbitrary string?If the entry point for each plugin is given a unique name (instead of being called "plugin", as the sharedfs plugin is) we would be able to log "loading plugin X" as well as provide options to control which plugins are activated. I don't know if that latter idea is a goal or not.
Also, is supporting unique names the same thing as /requiring/ unique names? Would this ultimately result in us needing a governed, hierarchical namespace?
- Two different loading pathways -- is that useful or just confusing?
"One and only one obvious way to do it."
OK, I'm convinced. Outside of the common client, are entrypoints already a hard dependency elsewhere in OpenStack such that we don't lose anything by requiring them?
- Should the plugin base class interpose itself between the plugin
and python-openstackclient in order to enforce interface
versioning? Is that even possible?
We could probably figure out a way to do that, but I don't know why
you would want to. What did you have in mind? Which interface are you
worried about versioning, the CLI itself?
I'm not sure I do want to, but here's my concern: Right now the common client's API for extending the commandline is entirely internal to the common client itself. When I write the sharedfs plugin to make use of that same API, I'm treating that internal API as external... and I don't like being the only person in the world doing that.
Of course, if the expectation is that that common client API will soon become public/documented/frozen anyway, then there's no problem.
-Andrew
| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
