Skip to content

refactor: prefix extensions with package name #64

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 17, 2023

Conversation

ven-k
Copy link
Contributor

@ven-k ven-k commented Feb 9, 2023

  • this will ensure extension names are unique
  • whenever there is another package with same ext name, building sysimage fails
  • ex: ChangeOfVariables has its own ChainRulesCoreExt.jl

Ex: https://github.com/SciML/DiffEqBase.jl/tree/master/ext follows this for above mentioned reasons

- this will ensure extension names are unique
- whenever there is another package with same ext name, building
  sysimage fails
- ex: ChangeOfVariables has its own ChainRulesCoreExt.jl
@devmotion
Copy link
Member

Is this an official requirement that is documented? Or just something SciML started to do? I think we would want to follow official guidelines and not change something preemptively if possibly it is changed/fixed in Pkg before Julia 1.9 is released.

@ven-k
Copy link
Contributor Author

ven-k commented Feb 9, 2023

@devmotion
Copy link
Member

Copied from JuliaMath/ChangesOfVariables.jl#13 (comment):

Personally, I would not make changes to the extensions too quickly and without approval from the Pkg developers since there does not even exist an official Julia version that supports extensions yet and the design, limitations, and restrictions are still changing (see e.g. JuliaLang/julia#48533 and the PRs linked therein). Additionally, the official documentation for these extensions (https://pkgdocs.julialang.org/dev/creating-packages/#Conditional-loading-of-code-in-packages-(Extensions)) does not use prefixes but the current setup.

@tpapp
Copy link
Collaborator

tpapp commented Feb 10, 2023

While it was great that a few packages went ahead to experiment with this feature, I think this can wait until things stabilize and we don't need to follow up temporary workarounds.

Copy link
Member

@devmotion devmotion left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Kristoffer thinks it is a reasonable change, regardless of potential upstream fixes. I trust him and therefore support the PR.

Copy link
Collaborator

@tpapp tpapp left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@ven-k: Thanks!

@devmotion: I agree, will merge.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants