Currently, flask-shell2http works just like any other flask extension; you create an object from a class to which you pass the flask application instance. We could follow a different approach making it solely available as a pluggable Flask.Blueprint.
Some initial ideas:
The Shell2HTTP class could derive from the Flask.Blueprint class; that way we can drop the init_app method, the register_command can be a wrapper over the Flask.Blueprint.add_url_rule method (it already is, but it works on app.add_url_rule). Then, the enduser would do something like,
from flask_shell2http import Shell2HTTP
# default blueprint instantiation
shell2http_bp = Shell2HTTP('awesome', __name__, url_prefix='/commands')
# extra method by flask-shell2http
shell2http_bp.register_command(endpoint="echo", command_name="echo", ...)
This would open doors for many other features since Flask.Flask and Flask.Blueprint derive from the same abstract base class and flask blueprints are very powerful.
Currently, flask-shell2http works just like any other flask extension; you create an object from a class to which you pass the flask application instance. We could follow a different approach making it solely available as a pluggable
Flask.Blueprint.Some initial ideas:
Shell2HTTPclass could derive from theFlask.Blueprintclass; that way we can drop theinit_appmethod, theregister_commandcan be a wrapper over theFlask.Blueprint.add_url_rulemethod (it already is, but it works onapp.add_url_rule). Then, the enduser would do something like,and then in the application factory,
This would open doors for many other features since
Flask.FlaskandFlask.Blueprintderive from the same abstract base class and flask blueprints are very powerful.