Re: Thoughts on cleaner reloading support

On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Nick Coghlan <[email protected]> wrote:
> The extension module discussion on python-dev got me thinking about
> the different ways in which the "singleton" assumption for modules can
> be broken, and how to ensure that extension modules play nicely in
> that environment.
>
> As I see it, there are 4 ways the "singleton that survives for the
> lifetime of the process following initial import" assumption regarding
> modules can turn out to be wrong:
>
> 1. In-place reload, overwriting the existing contents of a namespace.
> imp.reload() does this. We sort of do it for __main__, except we
> usually keep re-using that namespace to run *different* things, rather
> than rerunning the same code.
>
> 2. Parallel loading. We remove the existing module from sys.modules
> (keeping a reference to it alive), and load a second copy.
> Alternatively, we call the loader APIs directly. Either way, we end up
> with two independent copies of the "same" module, potentially
> reflecting difference system states at the time of execution.
>
> 3. Subinterpreter support. Quite similar to parallel loading, but
> we're loading the second copy because we're in a subinterpreter and
> can't see the original.
>
> 4. Unloading. We remove the existing module from sys.modules and drop
> all other references to it. The module gets destroyed, and we later
> import a completely fresh copy.
>
> Even pure Python modules may not support these, since they may have
> side effects, or assume they're in the main interpreter, or other
> things. Currently, there is no way to signal this to the import
> system, so we're left with implicit misbehaviour when we attempt to
> reload the modules with global side effects.
>
> For a while, I was thinking we could design the import system to "just
> figure it out", but now I'm thinking a selection of read/write
> properties on spec objects may make more sense:
>
>     allow_reload
>     allow_unload
>     allow_reimport
>     allow_subinterpreter_import
>
> These would all default to True, but loaders and modules could
> selectively turn them off.
>
> They would also be advisory rather than enforced via all possible
> import state manipulation mechanisms. New functions in importlib.util
> could provide easier alternatives to directly manipulating
> sys.modules:
>
> - importlib.util.reload (replacement for imp.reload that checks the
> spec allows reloading)
> - importlib.util.unload (replacement for "del
> sys.modules[module.__name__]" that checks the spec allows unloading,
> and also unloads all child modules)
What do you mean by child modules?

> - importlib.util.reimport (replacement for
> test.support.import_fresh_module that checks the spec of any existing
> sys.module entry allows reimporting a parallel copy)
>
> One of these is not like the others... aside from the existing
> extension module specific mechanism defined in PEP 3121, I'm not sure
> we can devise a general *loader* level API to force imports for a
> particular name to fail in a subinterpreter. So this concern probably
> needs to be ignored in favour of a possible future C API level
> solution.
>
> Cheers,
> Nick.
>
> --
> Nick Coghlan   |   [email protected]   |   Brisbane, Australia
> _______________________________________________
> Import-SIG mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/import-sig



-- 
Thanks,
Andrew Svetlov