Python Static Utility Class – Best Way to Create and Is Using Metaclasses a Code Smell?

code smellpython

Ok so I need to create a bunch of utility classes in python. Normally I would just use a simple module for this but I need to be able to inherit in order to share common code between them. The common code needs to reference the state of the module using it so simple imports wouldn't work well. I don't like singletons, and classes that use the classmethod decorator do not have proper support for python properties.

One pattern I see used a lot is creating an internal python class prefixed with an underscore and creating a single instance which is then explicitly imported or set as the module itself. This is also used by fabric to create a common environment object (fabric.api.env).

I've realized another way to accomplish this would be with metaclasses. For example:

#util.py
class MetaFooBase(type):
    @property
    def file_path(cls):
        raise NotImplementedError

    def inherited_method(cls):
        print cls.file_path


#foo.py
from util import *
import env

class MetaFoo(MetaFooBase):
    @property
    def file_path(cls):
        return env.base_path + "relative/path"

    def another_class_method(cls):
        pass

class Foo(object): __metaclass__ = MetaFoo


#client.py
from foo import Foo

file_path = Foo.file_path

I like this approach better than the first pattern for a few reasons:

First, instantiating Foo would be meaningless as it has no attributes or methods, which insures this class acts like a true single interface utility, unlike the first pattern which relies on the underscore convention to dissuade client code from creating more instances of the internal class.

Second, sub-classing MetaFoo in a different module wouldn't be as awkward because I wouldn't be importing a class with an underscore which is inherently going against its private naming convention.

Third, this seems to be the closest approximation to a static class that exists in python, as all the meta code applies only to the class and not to its instances. This is shown by the common convention of using cls instead of self in the class methods. As well, the base class inherits from type instead of object which would prevent users from trying to use it as a base for other non-static classes. It's implementation as a static class is also apparent when using it by the naming convention Foo, as opposed to foo, which denotes a static class method is being used.

As much as I think this is a good fit, I feel that others might feel its not pythonic because its not a sanctioned use for metaclasses which should be avoided 99% of the time. I also find most python devs tend to shy away from metaclasses which might affect code reuse/maintainability. Is this code considered code smell in the python community? I ask because I'm creating a pypi package, and would like to do everything I can to increase adoption.

Best Answer

I think it is a bad idea.

Its a very odd use of meta classes which will contribute to confusion of anyone trying to follow your code. In order to make it worth using this technique, you need the advantages to outweigh that confusion.

As for your reasons:

Creating an accesible Foo class that can be instantiated, but doesn't actually work like a typical object is much more prone to misuse than an internal class that you know you aren't supposed to call.
Don't name the base class with an underscore. If its intended to be inherited by other modules, it shouldn't be named that way.
There already is a method to implement static classes in python, staticmethod or classmethod. As noted, its not hard to implement a staticproperty

In general, there is a theme in your approach of trying to prevent client code from doing the wrong thing. That's not a pythonic attitude. The pythonic approach is to trust your client code. If they want to do something crazy, let them. Don't try to prevent client from instantiating your internal object, there may well be a good reason to do that.

I'm a bit of a purist and think that you shouldn't be storing state like this. So the very fact that you are asking the question means you're already doing it wrong. If you have state, I think it should be in an object. I think storing any sort of state at the module level should be avoided. I think its only a good idea to implement something like this if you have no changing state.

To close off, I'd like to plug the Code Review Stack Exchange, where I'm a moderator. If you post your code there you can get suggestions on how to make it better. I think you may get some helpful suggestions for how to restructure your code to avoid this question from even coming up.

Related Solutions

Python – @staticmethod vs Module-Level Function

Technically a static method and a module function behave pretty much identically - In both cases they work like standard functions, the difference being the namespace where they are placed. So the decision is more one of maintainability/readability.

Generally I would use a static method if some or all of these criteria are met:

There is already an existing class with normal methods
The function relates to objects of the class generally, but not one specific instance
You want to be able to call the method as if it's a non-static method, possibly because you may want to make the method non-static in the future without breaking client code

Import Module vs From Module Import Function in Python – Explained

Importing the module doesn't waste anything; the module is always fully imported (into the sys.modules mapping), so whether you use import sys or from sys import argv makes no odds.

The only difference between the two statements is what name is bound; import sys binds the name sys to the module (so sys -> sys.modules['sys']), while from sys import argv binds a different name, argv, pointing straight at the attribute contained inside of the module (so argv -> sys.modules['sys'].argv). The rest of the sys module is still there, whether you use anything else from the module or not.

There is also no performance difference between the two approaches. Yes, sys.argv has to look up two things; it has to look up sys in your global namespace (finds the module), then look up the attribute argv. And yes, by using from sys import argv you can skip the attribute lookup, since you already have a direct reference to the attribute. But the import statement still has to do that work, it looks up the same attribute when importing, and you'll only ever need to use argv once. If you had to use argv thousands of times in a loop, it could perhaps make a difference, but in this specific case it really does not.

Hence, the choice between one or the other should be based solely on coding style.

In a large module, I'd certainly use import sys; code documentation matters, and using sys.argv somewhere in a large module makes it much clearer what you are referring to than just argv ever would.

If the only place you use argv is in a '__main__' block to call a main() function, by all means use from sys import argv if you feel happier about that:

if __name__ == '__main__':
    from sys import argv
    main(argv)

I'd still use import sys there myself. All things being equal (and they are, exactly, in terms of performance and number of characters used to write it), that is just easier on the eye for me.

If you are importing something else altogether, then perhaps performance comes into play. But only if you use a specific name in a module many times over, in a critical loop for example. But then creating a local name (within a function) is going to be faster still:

 import somemodule

 def somefunction():
      localname = somemodule.somefunctionorother
      while test:
          # huge, critical loop
          foo = localname(bar)

Best Answer

Related Solutions

Python – @staticmethod vs Module-Level Function

Import Module vs From Module Import Function in Python – Explained

Related Topic