The Artima Developer Community
Sponsored Link

Weblogs Forum
What about a decorator module version 3.0?

3 replies on 1 page. Most recent reply: Dec 3, 2008 8:11 AM by Wolfgang Lipp

Welcome Guest
  Sign In

Go back to the topic listing  Back to Topic List Click to reply to this topic  Reply to this Topic Click to search messages in this forum  Search Forum Click for a threaded view of the topic  Threaded View   
Previous Topic   Next Topic
Flat View: This topic has 3 replies on 1 page
Michele Simionato

Posts: 222
Nickname: micheles
Registered: Jun, 2008

What about a decorator module version 3.0? (View in Weblogs)
Posted: Nov 30, 2008 10:32 AM
Reply to this message Reply
Summary
I am asking the users of my decorator module if they would accept a new version breaking backward compatibility in a minor way.
Advertisement

I am thinking about releasing a new version of the decorator module, completely rewritten from scratch. The new implementation takes half the lines of the original one and it is much more general, so I like it more. However, there is an issue of compatibility with the past and I am asking here for feedback from my users.

I have already broken backward compatibility in the past, with version 2.0 of the module, and I could break it again in version 3.0. However, the breakage in version 2.0 was very minor and at the time the module had very few users so that nobody ever complained.

Nowadays there are a lot of people using it and there are frameworks relying on it (such as Pylons) so I am reluctant to break compatibility, even in minor ways.

I want to ask people how do they use the module. If you just use the decorator function, that will continue to work as before and I do not think I will ever break that functionality - actually I am thinking of enhancing it.

However, over the time I have added other utilities to the module - I am referring to getinfo and new_wrapper - and I would like to get rid of them. Actually I would like to deprecate them in decorator 3.0 and to remove them in decorator 3.1 or later on, after a grace period of one year or so.

Also, I would like to remove a new feature introduced in version 2.3, i.e. the direct support to decorator factories. I added it in haste and now I have changed my mind. Is there anybody using that functionality? I want to offer an alternative which does not involve magically adding a __call__ method to a class.

In general I want to remove a few things because I feel they add to the learning curve without offering a compelling benefit, or because I think the new implementation offer better ways to do the same job.

If nobody uses those features I will remove them; on the other hand, if this is too much of a breakage, I will just start a new project with a different name. The old decorator module will continue to live forever, but the developement on it will stop and the new things will go in the new module.

Personally, I would like to keep the name, and to add some support for Python 3.0: decorator 3.0 sounds good for Python 3.0, and the change I have in mind is the same kind of change which happened for Python 3.0, i.e. a simplification more than an addition of new features.

What do you people think?


Matthew Wilson

Posts: 4
Nickname: mw44118
Registered: Sep, 2008

Re: What about a decorator module version 3.0? Posted: Nov 30, 2008 2:01 PM
Reply to this message Reply
Do you have a different approach for decorator factories?

Philip Jenvey

Posts: 1
Nickname: pjenvey
Registered: Nov, 2008

Re: What about a decorator module version 3.0? Posted: Nov 30, 2008 6:57 PM
Reply to this message Reply
Pylons only uses the decorator function, and I doubt any Pylons projects use anything but the decorator function as well. +1 on deprecating the other things as you see fit

Wolfgang Lipp

Posts: 17
Nickname: wolf2005
Registered: Sep, 2005

Re: What about a decorator module version 3.0? Posted: Dec 3, 2008 8:11 AM
Reply to this message Reply
i’d suggest giving the old package a new name that includes its version number, so people can simply ‘easy_install decorator2’, then change their import statements to ‘import decorator2 as decorator’ or similar, or choose to upgrade their code where needed. compatibility is a fine thing, but it shouldn’t be allowed to hamper progress. python’s standard library already has too many quaint modules that betray their age.

Flat View: This topic has 3 replies on 1 page
Topic: Speaking at a Castle in Denmark Previous Topic   Next Topic Topic: The Third Cycle of the


Sponsored Links



Google
  Web Artima.com   

Copyright © 1996-2014 Artima, Inc. All Rights Reserved. - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Advertise with Us