On Jan 25, 6:45 pm, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Gabriel Genellina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > You can also put, in animal/__init__.py: > > from monkey import Monkey > > and now you can refer to it as org.lib.animal.Monkey, but keep the > > implementation of Monkey class and all related stuff into > > .../animal/monkey.py > > This (as far as I can understand) is exactly the solution the original > poster desired to "shoot down", for reasons I still don't understand.
Come on, the OP explained it quite clearly in his original post. Did you guys even read it? The module where org.lib.animal.Monkey is actually defined should be an implementation detail of the library, but simply importing Monkey into org.lib.animal doesn't quite make it one. If a user pickles a Monkey class, and then the OP decides to refactor the Monkey class into a new module (say org.lib.animal.primate.monkey), then the user would not be able to unpickle it. Because, you see, pickles record the module a class is defined in. So, now the user has to worry about where Monkey is actually defined. It is not an implementation detail. The solution is to modify the class's __module__ attribute as well as importing it, as I've already pointed out: from org.lib.animal.monkey import Monkey Monkey.__module__ = 'org.lib.animal' This should be enough to satisfy the OP's requirements, at least for classes, without softening the one-to-one module-to-file relationship, or using "hacks". In fact, I'd say this is good practice. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
