s3path as uri-pathlib-factory uri backend plugin

[petrus-v]

This proposal to replace #106

As agree on #106 I've developed https://github.com/petrus-v/uri-pathlib-factory which allow to mock pathlib and instantiate any pathlib uri backend implementation.

This PR is about to make s3path a plugin of uri-pathlib-factory.

Dependency is optional if developer wants to keep using s3path without factory.

@liormizr I'll be happy to get your feedback and some reviews from you on uri-pathlib-factory package !

[liormizr]

Hi @petrus-v

Looks like a great start But we have here a design that I don't fully understand if we created a separated URI library S3Path (and all the rest future "child" libraries) need to be his dependency Not the other way around.

In s3path I don't expect to see any code that relates to uri-pathlib-factory mention in the doc's could be nice but thats all. In uri-pathlib-factory you need to install s3path and use it there in my opinion

What do you think?

[petrus-v]

Hi @petrus-v

Looks like a great start But we have here a design that I don't fully understand if we created a separated URI library S3Path (and all the rest future "child" libraries) need to be his dependency Not the other way around.

In s3path I don't expect to see any code that relates to uri-pathlib-factory mention in the doc's could be nice but thats all. In uri-pathlib-factory you need to install s3path and use it there in my opinion

What do you think?

At the moment I've developed uri-pathlib-factory as a pluggable mechanism so from my point of view each backend (S3Path, FTPPath, ...) can decided to be a plugin of uri-pathlib-factory.

From now uri-pathlib-factory is only a factory, each "backend" as S3path can register itself as pluging (like the purpose of this PR) and decided by itself according provided constructor parameters if it's a s3 path/uri or not, so you are right at the moment uri-pathlib-factory is not aware about its plugings.

This allows, as a developer to choose different ways to work

• use only S3Path without uri-pathlib-factory (pip install -i S3Path) so I'll need to instantiate S3Path object as today: S3Path("/my/bycket")
• use uri-pathlib-factory and S3Path and FTPPath (pip install -i S3Path[factory],FTPPath): I can instantiate path object
  • using PathFactory("s3://path") or PathFactory("ftp://path")
  • or if I chose to load the monkey patch Path("s3://path") or Path("ftp://path")
• use uri-pathlib-factory and S3Path without FTPPath because project don't needs to excahnge data with ftp.

In this way, you can easly turn existing python project using pathlib interface with s3 support by installing S3Path[factory] and loading the monkey patch.

I've to think a bit more to find proper solution to solve case such as my_ftp_path.rename(my_s3_path) as exposed by #107 but that will probably another library to do the glue between different backbends and probably some abstractions or tooling provided by uri-pathlib-factory.

I expect to generate and improve the documentation regarding uri-pathlib-factory, hope that clarify my vision I'll come back once I'll be happy with a rename case solution and will consider to move dependencies in the other way !