[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Pulp-list] gc client extension loading ordering



Ok, so let me propose my idea.

If I remember correctly, you were hooking commands onto a sub-section by name. If I'm not, then you should be ;)

So my question is: why does the command have to exist already for the hook to succeed? I think you can keep track of commands that have been "hooked" into a section that hasn't been loaded yet. Then when the section is loaded the commands waiting to be hooked in can be.

This would actually circumvent any need for an order to loading the plugins at all. So long as we maintain a little intermediate state.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Dobies" <jason dobies redhat com>
Cc: pulp-list redhat com
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 9:11:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Pulp-list] gc client extension loading ordering

> Agreed, I like the optional part.  But maybe make built ins not be 1, but
> something higher.  We allow for a bit more flexibility if anything ever needs
> to get loaded before the builtins, speaking from a hypothetical standpoint (i
> can't think of a valid reason).

Pfffft. Clearly you're not taking into account that it's been 
scientifically proven that the natural scale for a setup like this is -3 
to +17.365. Noob.


-- 
Jay Dobies
Freenode: jdob @ #pulp
http://pulpproject.org | http://blog.pulpproject.org

_______________________________________________
Pulp-list mailing list
Pulp-list redhat com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]