continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

[Scott Kitterman]

On Monday, November 15, 2010 10:17:01 am Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2010, at 12:06 PM, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> >Why not just use python-support/dh_python2's private-module mode? This
> >is what most applications should be using, anyway, rather than polluting
> >the public Python module namespace.
> 
> I hesitate to mention this here because I agree that in this context,
> application-private modules makes good sense.
> 
> In *general* though, I'm not a big fan of it because properly organized and
> named packages should not be "polluting" but enhancing the public
> namespace. A good way to think about it is that an "application" (i.e. the
> command you execute) is just the tip of the iceberg on top of a rich
> library that could be useful to others.  I'm thinking about examples like
> 'bzr' and 'bzrlib' which were explicitly designed to work that way, to
> great benefit.

Unless there is some commitment to API stability, this is actively harmful.  
If you are writing functions to be consumed generally, and not just within 
your program/module/whatever, then you have to take on some additional 
responsiblities.  If you don't, then whoever tries to take advantage of your 
code is in for a world of hurt.

As you say, when it's design for it, this is great, but not for general 
application code.

Scott K