[SciPy-dev] Package organization
pearu at scipy.org
Thu Oct 13 09:30:06 CDT 2005
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, Robert Kern wrote:
> Pearu Peterson wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, Fernando Perez wrote:
>>> Robert Kern wrote:
>>>> I would like to see scipy's package organization become flatter and more
>>>> oriented towards easy, lightweight, modular packaging rather than
>>>> subject matter. For example, some people want bindings to SUNDIALS for
>>>> ODEs. They could go into scipy.integrate, but that introduces a large,
>>>> needless dependency for those who just want to compute integrals. So I
>>>> would suggest that SUNDIALS bindings would be in their own
>>>> scipy.sundials package.
>> This is for what scipy.lib namespace was created, to collect packages
>> containing wrappers to various libraries. So, how
>> sounds for you in addition to
>> etc etc
>> Among other things this may reduce the time spent on importing large
>> extension modules that users might not use in their programs.
> I'm proposing just the opposite.
Ok, I see.
> scipy.lib puts a lot of things which are unrelated together. That makes
> packaging harder.
Hmm, how does it make packaging harder?
> On top of that, you're still importing scipy.lib.sundials,
> scipy.lib.odepack, and scipy.lib.quadpack from scipy.integrate. That
> means you can't really install that functionality separately.
May be I am not quite following you here but I don't understand the
"can't" part. Could give an example how would you organize
sundials,odepack,quadpack for scipy.integrate?
> I want the SUNDIALS raw bindings and the Python convenience code that
> wraps around the raw bindings to all be in scipy.sundials. That makes
> packaging dead simple and understandable. The things that are
> functionally, necessarily related to each other are combined in this one
> controllable bundle.
> Code should be organized to make coding and distribution easier. It's
> documentation that should be organized around concepts.
I can agree on that.
More information about the Scipy-dev