Develop Reference

What is the right way to use service methods in Django?

As an example, let's say I am building an Rest API using Django Rest Framework. Now as part of the application, a few methods are common across all views. My approach is that in the root directory, I have created a services.py file. Inside that module, is a class (CommonUtils) containing all the common utility methods. In that same services.py module I have instantiated an object of CommonUtils.
Now across the application, in the different views.py files I am importing the object from the module and calling the methods on that object. So, essentially I am using a singleton object for the common utility methods.
I feel like this is not a good design approach. So, I want to get an explanation for why this approach is not a good idea and What would the best practice or best approach to achieve the same thing, i.e use a set of common utility methods across all views.py files.
Thanks in advance.

Is this the right design? Why? How to do better?
I feel like this is not a good design approach. So, I want to get an explanation for why this approach is not a good idea and What would the best practice or best approach to achieve the same thing, i.e use a set of common utility methods across all views.py files.
Like #Dmitry Belaventsev wrote above, there is no general rule to solve this problem. This is a typical case of cross-cutting-concerns.
Now across the application, in the different views.py files I am importing the object from the module and calling the methods on that object. So, essentially I am using a singleton object for the common utility methods.
Yes, your implementation is actually a singleton and there is nothing wrong with it. You should ask yourself what do you want to achieve or what do you really need. There are a lot of solutions and you can start with the most basic one:
A simple function in a python module
# file is named utils.py and lives in the root directory
def helper_function_one(param):
return transcendent_all_evil_of(param)
def helper_function_two(prename, lastname):
return 'Hello {} {}'.format(prename, lastname)
In Python it is not uncommon to use just plain functions in a module. You can upgrade it to a method (and a class) if this is really necessary and you need the advantages of classes and objects.
You also can use a class with static methods:
# utils.py
class Utils():
#staticmethod
def helper_one():
print('do something')
But you can see, this is nothing different than the solution with plain functions besides the extra layer of the class. But it has no further value.
You could also write a Singleton Class but in my opinion, this is not very pythonic, because you get the same result with a simple object instance in a module.

Python/Django and services as classes

Are there any conventions on how to implement services in Django? Coming from a Java background, we create services for business logic and we "inject" them wherever we need them.
Not sure if I'm using python/django the wrong way, but I need to connect to a 3rd party API, so I'm using an api_service.py file to do that. The question is, I want to define this service as a class, and in Java, I can inject this class wherever I need it and it acts more or less like a singleton. Is there something like this I can use with Django or should I build the service as a singleton and get the instance somewhere or even have just separate functions and no classes?

TL;DR It's hard to tell without more details but chances are you only need a mere module with a couple plain functions or at most just a couple simple classes.
Longest answer:
Python is not Java. You can of course (technically I mean) use Java-ish designs, but this is usually not the best thing to do.
Your description of the problem to solve is a bit too vague to come with a concrete answer, but we can at least give you a few hints and pointers (no pun intended):
1/ Everything is an object
In python, everything (well, everything you can find on the RHS of an assignment that is) is an object, including modules, classes, functions and methods.
One of the consequences is that you don't need any complex framework for dependency injection - you just pass the desired object (module, class, function, method, whatever) as argument and you're done.
Another consequence is that you don't necessarily need classes for everything - a plain function or module can be just enough.
A typical use case is the strategy pattern, which, in Python, is most often implemented using a mere callback function (or any other callable FWIW).
2/ a python module is a singleton.
As stated above, at runtime a python module is an object (of type module) whose attributes are the names defined at the module's top-level.
Except for some (pathological) corner cases, a python module is only imported once for a given process and is garanteed to be unique. Combined with the fact that python's "global" scope is really only "module-level" global, this make modules proper singletons, so this design pattern is actually already builtin.
3/ a python class is (almost) a singleton
Python classes are objects too (instance of type type, directly or indirectly), and python has classmethods (methods that act on the class itself instead of acting on the current instance) and class-level attributes (attributes that belong to the class object itself, not to it's instances), so if you write a class that only has classmethods and class attributes, you technically have a singleton - and you can use this class either directly or thru instances without any difference since classmethods can be called on instances too.
The main difference here wrt/ "modules as singletons" is that with classes you can use inheritance...
4/ python has callables
Python has the concept of "callable" objects. A "callable" is an object whose class implements the __call__() operator), and each such object can be called as if it was a function.
This means that you can not only use functions as objects but also use objects as functions - IOW, the "functor" pattern is builtin. This makes it very easy to "capture" some context in one part of the code and use this context for computations in another part.
5/ a python class is a factory
Python has no new keyword. Pythonc classes are callables, and instanciation is done by just calling the class.
This means that you can actually use a class or function the same way to get an instance, so the "factory" pattern is also builtin.
6/ python has computed attributes
and beside the most obvious application (replacing a public attribute by a pair of getter/setter without breaking client code), this - combined with other features like callables etc - can prove to be very powerful. As a matter of fact, that's how functions defined in a class become methods
7/ Python is dynamic
Python's objects are (usually) dict-based (there are exceptions but those are few and mostly low-level C-coded classes), which means you can dynamically add / replace (and even remove) attributes and methods (since methods are attributes) on a per-instance or per-class basis.
While this is not a feature you want to use without reasons, it's still a very powerful one as it allows to dynamically customize an object (remember that classes are objects too), allowing for more complex objects and classes creation schemes than what you can do in a static language.
But Python's dynamic nature goes even further - you can use class decorators and/or metaclasses to taylor the creation of a class object (you may want to have a look at Django models source code for a concrete example), or even just dynamically create a new class using it's metaclass and a dict of functions and other class-level attributes.
Here again, this can really make seemingly complex issues a breeze to solve (and avoid a lot of boilerplate code).
Actually, Python exposes and lets you hook into most of it's inners (object model, attribute resolution rules, import mechanism etc), so once you understand the whole design and how everything fits together you really have the hand on most aspects of your code at runtime.
Python is not Java
Now I understand that all of this looks a bit like a vendor's catalog, but the point is highlight how Python differs from Java and why canonical Java solutions - or (at least) canonical Java implementations of those solutions - usually don't port well to the Python world. It's not that they don't work at all, just that Python usually has more straightforward (and much simpler IMHO) ways to implement common (and less common) design patterns.
wrt/ your concrete use case, you will have to post a much more detailed description, but "connecting to a 3rd part API" (I assume a REST api ?) from a Django project is so trivial that it really doesn't warrant much design considerations by itself.

In Python you can write the same as Java program structure. You don't need to be so strongly typed but you can. I'm using types when creating common classes and libraries that are used across multiple scripts.
Here you can read about Python typing
You can do the same here in Python. Define your class in package (folder) called services
Then if you want singleton you can do like that:
class Service(object):
instance = None
def __new__(cls):
if cls.instance is not None:
return cls.instance
else:
inst = cls.instance = super(Service, cls).__new__()
return inst
And now you import it wherever you want in the rest of the code
from services import Service
Service().do_action()

Adding to the answer given by bruno desthuilliers and TreantBG.
There are certain questions that you can ask about the requirements.
For example one question could be, does the api being called change with different type of objects ?
If the api doesn't change, you will probably be okay with keeping it as a method in some file or class.
If it does change, such that you are calling API 1 for some scenario, API 2 for some and so on and so forth, you will likely be better off with moving/abstracting this logic out to some class (from a better code organisation point of view).
PS: Python allows you to be as flexible as you want when it comes to code organisation. It's really upto you to decide on how you want to organise the code.

Advantages of using static methods over instance methods in python

My IDE keeps suggesting I convert my instance methods to static methods. I guess because I haven't referenced any self within these methods.
An example is :
class NotificationViewSet(NSViewSet):
def pre_create_processing(self, request, obj):
log.debug(" creating messages ")
# Ensure data is consistent and belongs to the sending bot.
obj['user_id'] = request.auth.owner.id
obj['bot_id'] = request.auth.id
So my question would be: do I lose anything by just ignoring the IDE suggestions, or is there more to it?

This is a matter of workflow, intentions with your design, and also a somewhat subjective decision.
First of all, you are right, your IDE suggests converting the method to a static method because the method does not use the instance. It is most likely a good idea to follow this suggestion, but you might have a few reasons to ignore it.
Possible reasons to ignore it:
The code is soon to be changed to use the instance (on the other hand, the idea of soon is subjective, so be careful)
The code is legacy and not entirely understood/known
The interface is used in a polymorphic/duck typed way (e.g. you have a collection of objects with this method and you want to call them in a uniform way, but the implementation in this class happens to not need to use the instance - which is a bit of a code smell)
The interface is specified externally and cannot be changed (this is analog to the previous reason)
The AST of the code is read/manipulated either by itself or something that uses it and expects this method to be an instance method (this again is an external dependency on the interface)
I'm sure there can be more, but failing these types of reasons I would follow the suggestion. However, if the method does not belong to the class (e.g. factory method or something similar), I would refactor it to not be part of the class.

I think that you might be mixing up some terminology - the example is not a class method. Class methods receive the class as the first argument, they do not receive the instance. In this case you have a normal instance method that is not using its instance.
If the method does not belong in the class, you can move it out of the class and make it a standard function. Otherwise, if it should be bundled as part of the class, e.g. it's a factory function, then you should probably make it a static method as this (at a minimum) serves as useful documentation to users of your class that the method is coupled to the class, but not dependent on it's state.
Making the method static also has the advantage this it can be overridden in subclasses of the class. If the method was moved outside of the class as a regular function then subclassing is not possible.

Static classes in Python

I once read (I think on a page from Microsoft) that it's a good way to use static classes, when you don't NEED two or more instances of a class.
I'm writing a program in Python. Is it a bad style, if I use #classmethod for every method of a class?

Generally, usage like this is better done by just using functions in a module, without a class at all.

It's terrible style, unless you actually need to access the class.
A static method [...] does not translate to a Python classmethod. Oh sure, it results in more or less the same effect, but the goal of a classmethod is actually to do something that's usually not even possible [...] (like inheriting a non-default constructor). The idiomatic translation of a [...] static method is usually a module-level function, not a classmethod or staticmethod.
source

In my experience creating a class is a very good solution for a number of reasons. One is that you wind up using the class as a 'normal' class (esp. making more than just one instance) more often than you might think. It's also a reasonable style choice to stick with classes for everthing; this can make it easier for others who read/maintain your code, esp if they are very OO - they will be comfortable with classes. As noted in other replies, it's also reasonable to just use 'bare' functions for the implementation. You may wish to start with a class and make it a singleton/Borg pattern (lots of examples if you googlefor these); it gives you the flexibility to (re)use the class to meet other needs. I would recommend against the 'static class' approach as being non-conventional and non-Pythonic, which makes it harder to read and maintain.

There are a few approaches you might take for this. As others have mentioned, you could just use module-level functions. In this case, the module itself is the namespace that holds them together. Another option, which can be useful if you need to keep track of state, is to define a class with normal methods (taking self), and then define a single global instance of it, and copy its instance methods to the module namespace. This is the approach taken by the standard library "random" module -- take a look at lib/python2.5/random.py in your python directory. At the bottom, it has something like this:
# Create one instance, seeded from current time, and export its methods
# as module-level functions. [...]
_inst = Random()
seed = _inst.seed
random = _inst.random
uniform = _inst.uniform
...
Or you can take the basic approach you described (though I would recommend using #staticmethod rather than #classmethod in most cases).

You might actually want a singleton class rather than a static class:
Making a singleton class in python

Is it correct to inherit from built-in classes?

I want to parse an Apache access.log file with a python program in a certain way, and though I am completely new to object-oriented programming, I want to start doing it now.
I am going to create a class ApacheAccessLog, and the only thing I can imagine now, it will be doing is 'readline' method. Is it conventionally correct to inherit from the builtin file class in this case, so the class will behave just like an instance of the file class itself, or not? What is the best way of doing that?

In this case I would use delegation rather than inheritance. It means that your class should contain the file object as an attribute and invoke a readline method on it. You could pass a file object in the constructor of the logger class.
There are at least two reasons for this:
Delegation reduces coupling, for example in place of file objects you can use any other object that implements a readline method (duck typing comes handy here).
When inheriting from file the public interface of your class becomes unnecessarily broad. It includes all the methods defined on file even if these methods don't make sense in case of Apache log.

I am coming from a Java background but I am fairly confident that the same principles will apply in Python. As a rule of thumb you should never inherit from a class whose implementation you don't understand and control unless that class has been designed specifically for inheritance. If it has been designed in this way it should describe this clearly in its documentation.
The reason for this is that inheritance can potentially bind you to the implementation details of the class that you are inheriting from.
To use an example from Josh Bloch's book 'Effective Java'
If we were to extend the class ArrayList class in order to be able to count the number of items that were added to it during its life-time (not necessarily the number it currently contains) we may be tempted to write something like this.
public class CountingList extends ArrayList {
int counter = 0;
public void add(Object o) {
counter++;
super.add(0);
}
public void addAll(Collection c) {
count += c.size();
super.addAll(c);
}
// Etc.
}
Now this extension looks like it would accurately count the number of elements that were added to the list but in fact it may not. If ArrayList has implemented addAll by iterating over the Collection provided and calling its interface method addAll for each element then we will count each element added through the addAll method twice. Now the behaviour of our class is dependent on the implementation details of ArrayList.
This is of course in addition to the disadvantage of not being able to use other implementations of List with our CountingList class. Plus the disadvantages of inheriting from a concrete class that are discussed above.
It is my understanding that Python uses a similar (if not identical) method dispatch mechanism to Java and will therefore be subject to the same limitations. If someone could provide an example in Python I'm sure it would be even more useful.

It is perfectly acceptable to inherit from a built in class. In this case I'd say you're right on the money.
The log "is a" file so that tells you inheritance is ok..
General rule.
Dog "is a"n animal, therefore inherit from animal.
Owner "has a"n animal therefore don't inherit from animal.

Although it is in some cases useful to inherit from builtins, the real question here is what you want to do with the output and what's your big-picture design. I would usually write a reader (that uses a file object) and spit out whatever data class I need to hold the information I just read. It's then easy to design that data class to fit in with the rest of my design.

You should be fairly safe inheriting from a "builtin" class, as later modifications to these classes will usually be compatible with the current version.
However, you should think seriously about wether you really want to tie your class to the additional functionality provided by the builtin class. As mentioned in another answer you should consider (perhaps even prefer) using delegation instead.
As an example of why to avoid inheritance if you don't need it you can look at the java.util.Stack class. As it extends Vector it inherits all of the methods on Vector. Most of these methods break the contract implied by Stack, e.g. LIFO. It would have been much better to implement Stack using a Vector internally, only exposing Stack methods as the API. It would then have been easy to change the implementation to ArrayList or something else later, none of which is possible now due to inheritance.

You seem to have found your answer that in this case delegation is the better strategy. Nevertheless, I would like to add that, excepting delegation, there is nothing wrong with extending a built-in class, particularly if your alternative, depending on the language, is "monkey patching" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_patch)