While I somewhat await someone to tell my importlib is broken, I am thinking about the public API I plan to expose for the package. That has put squarely in my face the issues I have with import terminology and how PEP 302 has muddled things somewhat.
PEP 302 essentially introduces the concepts of "hooks", "importers", and "loaders". When I read the PEP I come away with "hooks" being an all-encompassing term for objects that help with importing. "Importers" are are objects that define find_module and potentially load_module. "Loaders" define load_module.
The issue I have are with the definitions of "hooks" and "importers". I personally view "hooks" as things that go on sys.path_hooks, not just any object that helps with importing. For that I prefer the term "importer" as the word is tied into "import".
That means the definition of "importer", as I read the PEP, is not right to me. I prefer the term "finder" for an object that defines find_module as that is what the object does; it finds the module if possible. That would mean an importer is either a finder and/or a loader.
But how does this play out in a potential package layout? Assuming I stick with importlib as the package name (I don't want to make imp a package as that just gets messy with existing names along with what to name the existing imp and _importlib), that would mean I would want to stick all of the importers into the importlib.importers module. While that is fine, that is a lot of "import", especially if you end up with "importlib.importers.BuiltinImporter". Using a name more like importlib.hooks is easier to read and less error-prone to typing; "importlib.hooks.BuiltinImporter" has a lot less repetitiveness.
So my hope of redefining "hooks" might not work out for pragmatic reasons. Hell, PEP 302 is entitled "New Import Hooks" which seems to make it a catch-all term. And I don't want to put everything directly under importlib as that makes the namespace huge; BuiltinImporter, FrozenImporter, Finder, Loader, etc., all under the same module? I would rather have importlib.hooks have BuiltinImporter and FrozenImporter and importlib.abc has Finder, Loader, etc.
So I think I just convinced myself of having under the importlib package the hooks, abc, util, and test modules. But I am going to use the term "finder" for an object that defines find_module and thus the soon-to-exist importlib.abc.Finder ABC.
That leaves the challenge of naming the ABC for the PEP 302 protocol that covers get_source/get_code/is_package. If something defines these methods what would it be called? Is the other API an introspective one? I could go with IntrospectiveLoader or InspectLoader. I think I prefer the the former, but that's rather long and makes me feel dirty like Java makes me feel dirty with its naming. InspectLoader it is!
Obviously if any of this is nuts, please speak up. This post may seem like me just thinking out loud (and it is), but I also blog about stuff like this to get feedback from the community. While I obviously need to be happy with an API if I am going to end up having to maintain it, I want the Python community to be happy with my decisions as their will be more consumers (you) of the API than producers (me). So if you have an opinion, positive or negative, let me know (although be warned I switched off anonymous posting since OpenID is supported by Blogger and I want to cut down on WoW gold farming spam).