Open Stack

Just a reminder, dogpile.cache is doing away with namespace packaging in 
version 0.6.0, due for the end of this week or sometime next week. 
dogpile.core is being retired and left as-is.   No changes should be 
needed by anyone using only dopgile.cache.



On 05/30/2016 06:17 PM, Mike Bayer wrote:
> Hi all -
>
> Just a heads up what's happening for dogpile.cache, in version 0.6.0 we
> are rolling the functionality of the dogpile.core package into
> dogpile.cache itself, and retiring the use of namespace package naming
> for dogpile.cache.
>
> Towards retiring the use of namespace packaging, the magic
> "declare_namespace() / extend_path()" logic is being removed from the
> file dogpile/__init__.py from dogpile.cache, and the "namespace_package"
> directive being removed from setup.py.
>
> However, currently, the plan is to leave alone entirely the
> "dogpile.core" package as is, and to no longer use the name
> "dogpile.core" within dogpile.cache at all; the constructs that it
> previously imported from "dogpile.core" it now just imports from
> "dogpile" and "dogpile.util" from within the dogpile.cache package.
>
> The caveat here is that Python environments that have dogpile.cache
> 0.5.7 or earlier installed will also have dogpile.core 0.4.1 installed
> as well, and dogpile.core *does* still contain the namespace package
> verbiage as before.   From our testing, we don't see there being any
> problem with this, however, I know there are people on this list who are
> vastly more familiar than I am with namespace packaging and I would
> invite them to comment on this as well as on the gerrit review [1] (the
> gerrit invites anyone with a Github account to register and comment).
>
> Note that outside of the Openstack world, there are a very small number
> of applications that make use of dopgile.core directly.  From our
> grepping we can find no mentions of "dogpile.core" in any Openstack
> requirements files.    For these applications, if a Python environment
> already has dogpile.core installed, this would continue to be used;
> however dogpile.cache also includes a file dogpile/core.py which sets up
> a compatible namespace, so that applications which list only
> dogpile.cache in their requirements but make use of "dogpile.core"
> constructs will continue to work as before.
>
> I would ask that anyone reading this to please alert me to anyone, any
> project, or any announcement medium which may be necessary in order to
> ensure that anyone who needs to be made aware of these changes are aware
> of them and have vetted them ahead of time.   I would like to release
> dogpile.cache 0.6.0 by the end of the week if possible.  I will send
> this email a few more times to the list to make sure that it is seen.
>
>
> [1] https://gerrit.sqlalchemy.org/#/c/89/
>