Re: [Pydispatcher-devel] 'dispatch' naming clash

[Stephen W. <go...@co...>]

Mike C. Fletcher wrote:
> That said, as long as PEAK's module doesn't overwrite any of the modules 
> in the PyDispatcher package (and as long as importing it's __init__.py 
> doesn't completely kark up the object model in some inventive and evil 
> way (this being PEAK, after all)) ...

Heh ... very well have you articulated the source of my unease.
But from Matthew's and Pat's replies, I gather that it didn't
kark up this particular subspace of the object model ... I'm
almost disappointed ... something in me is always secretly
gleeful when deep voodoo goes awry.  ;)

Matthew Scott wrote:
> Stephen Waterbury wrote:
>> ... Phillip Eby's PEAK package has a
>> sub-package called 'dispatch', which unfortunately (and,
>> IMO, rather arrogantly ;) PEAK installs into the
>> top-level site-packages namespace.  ...
> 
> I think it does this because PEAK collects a lot of other packages.

Welll ... <grumble grumble> ... yes PEAK does that, but I don't
see the PEAK dispatch package being released separately, as (say)
PyProtocols (justifiably) was.  IMHO, unless a package is
maintained as a separate distribution, it should install
itself within the namespace of its parent package.  (I also use
ZODB, and it's needless pollution always bugs me, but they have
managed not to step on anybody's else's names yet, AFAICT.)
 
> PJE's predicate dispatch package seems to be a "sister" package to the 
> 'protocols' package in PyProtocols -- so this problem would exist for 
> those using just PyProtocols and not just those using the entirety of PEAK.

True ... all the more reason ...

> Pat O'Brien and I ran into this namespace clash in developing Schevo ....
> We ended up solving the problem by a) including most Python dependencies 
> within Schevo in a manner that doesn't clash with site-packages, and b) 
> renaming the PyDispatch package from 'dispatch' to 'pydispatch' within 
> those included dependencies.

I don't mind this solution, but it shouldn't be necessary if PEAK were
playing nice.

Patrick K. O'Brien wrote:
> ....  The problem with PEAK began
> before Philip was aware of this project ....  The
> PEAK dispatcher is a different beast altogether, iirc.  (And let's face
> it, dispatch is a pretty generic term.  I wasn't the first and only
> person to create something with that name.)

True enough, but AFAIK, Mike and you were the first to release
a Python package with a module by that name, so I think your
claim to it in the Python namespace is legitimate.

> For now, let's give Mr. Eby the benefit of the doubt and assume that we
> can work out an amicable solution.  If that fails, Mike can feed him to
> the lions at PyCon while I sit ringside cheering on the lions.  ;-)

Rawr!  We should advertise the event -- heck, it might double
the PyCon registrations!   (Headline:  "Python Community
Metes Out Severe Penalties For Namespace Pollution!" ...
gimme that ol' time religion.  :)

> In all seriousness, perhaps a nice, polite message to PJE would be a
> good way to start.  I'd do it myself except I'm dog-tired right now.

Agreed.  My next step was going to be politely pointing out the
situation in a message to the PEAK list and seeing what response
came forth.  If you beat me to it, I'll chime in to register my vote
in favor of a more ecological approach to the Python contributed
package namespace, anyway.

Thanks for all the input, everyone.

Cheers,
Steve