Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!feeder.news-service.com!tudelft.nl!txtfeed1.tudelft.nl!multikabel.net!newsfeed20.multikabel.net!news2.euro.net!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
To: python-list@python.org
From: Gelonida N <gelonida@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: import packet.module without importing packet.__init__ ?
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 16:17:56 +0200
References: <mailman.958.1315699526.27778.python-list@python.org>	<4e6c074c$0$29990$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>	<mailman.967.1315712363.27778.python-list@python.org> <4e6c3e47$0$29999$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.21) Gecko/20110831 Lightning/1.0b2 ""
In-Reply-To: <4e6c3e47$0$29999$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.992.1315750692.27778.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 68
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.python:13127

Hi Steven,

Thanks again for your answer.


On 09/11/2011 06:51 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Gelonida N wrote:

> 
> In your example, you stated that kitchen explicitly imports kitchen.pans and
> kitchen.knives. So in that case, take it up with the designer of the
> kitchen package -- it was his decision to import them, just like he
> imported re and math and httplib. (For example.) 

Exactly. Thus my conclusion, that too many imports (just for commodity)
in __init__.py might not be such a good idea if one wants to allow
leaf-only imports.
> 
> If kitchen is your package, then it is your choice: if you want to have
> control over when sub-packages get imported, then don't automatically
> import them in __init__.py. 

Agreed. This is however my problem: Up to my understanding rpc4django
insists on putting code into __init__.py

> 
> 
>> One package in question is a huge django application.
>>
>> Within the package is one module defining some constants and tiny
>> functions, which I would like to reuse from some command line tools,
>> which should start quickly without loading any of the django specific
>> modules. (the startup penalty and the memory overhead would be noticable)
>>
>> I am using rpc4django, which expects, that __init__.py of the django
>> application exports some all rpc functions
>> which will basically import 95% of the django application and the entire
>> django frame work (none of which were required by my command tool,
>> support utility for this application)
>>
>>
>> I could of course create a separate package just for this tiny sub
>> module, but somehow it doesn't feel right to me.
> 
> Why should it be a package? Just make it a stand-alone module.

True

> Or do something like this:
> 
> my_app/
> +--  __init__.py  # lightweight, nearly empty
> +--  cmd_tools.py
> +--  module1.py
> +--  module2.py
> +--  rpc/
>      +-- __init__.py  # huge, imports my_app.module1, my_app.module2, etc.
> 
> then point rpc4django at my_app.rpc instead of my_app.
> 

Up to my knowledge rpc4django just imports all __inits__ of all django
applications to find look for functions with a certain decorator.

I'm not sure, whether django allows nested appllications, but this might
be a solution.