Support serving multiple libraries by one server

[robooo]

No description provided.

[loumaran]

We are using this adaptions now for more than one year. It is absolut stable and we recognized no problems. Is there a possibility that this feature will be merged into master in the near future? And if not, are there any doubts about this integration?
Can we provide any additional information or help if needed?

Thanks in advance,
Mario

[srinivaschavan]

@robooo , these code changes look good. I ended up making similar changes before looking at your PR.

For completeness sake, I think the docs should be updated to indicate that library should be a list. Also, I feel that we should keep backward compatibility support for library not being a list.

[Erich-McMillan]

@srinivaschavan @robooo @loumaran would be awesome to see this merged in. Can we get an update here?

@srinivaschavan I'm happy to update documentation if that's what's needed to move this along. That would be primarily the readme in this repo? Perhaps adding a Multiple library support section? Since I don't have write access to the forked repo here, can we merge this then I can create a separate PR to update the docs.

[srinivaschavan]

@Erich-McMillan , yes updating the README should suffice. However, the real concern with this PR is that it is not backwards compatible. IMO, we should handle the case where users have not specified a list of libraries.

[Erich-McMillan]

@Erich-McMillan , yes updating the README should suffice. However, the real concern with this PR is that it is not backwards compatible. IMO, we should handle the case where users have not specified a list of libraries.

Agreed, best to allow users to continue passing in a single library without putting it into a list. Would the best path forward be to have the constructor check the type of library to see if it is a list then act accordingly?

Also if no feedback from previous authors, I can create a new PR to introduce those changes alongside docs.

[Erich-McMillan]

@srinivaschavan to maintain backward compatibility could this be a solution?

Suggested change

	self._library = [RemoteLibraryFactory(library_)
	if isinstance(libraries, list):
	self._libraries = [RemoteLibraryFactory(library_)
	for library_ in libraries]
	else:
	self._libraries = [RemoteLibraryFactory(libraries)]

Though not sure if checking isinstance is the most pythonic, maybe checking to see if the item supports __iter__ would be more robust?

[srinivaschavan]

I think this solutions works. Best if you create a new PR with these changes.