Just and idea / discussion. Extensions support?
Technically all is necessary is to add some reference to docs and add "peewee_ext" package from that sample to distribution.
 > Just an idea, what do you think of "standard" extensions support for peewee like in Flask?

I thought that Flask had moved away from that type of packaging.

Python packaging is already confusing enough, I say let's just have peewee plugins be normal python packages.
 > I thought that Flask had moved away from that type of packaging.

They moved away from "namespace packages" and now Flask packages are normal packages, but there's a "import redirect" for "flask.ext.name" to "flask_name", so extension just define regular Python package "flask_name" and Flask is aware of the rest.

> Python packaging is already confusing enough, I say let's just have peewee plugins be normal python packages.

Well, I agree with that! :)

I just like that Flask extensions are well organised, so I've explored their approach.
 This redirect rule was designed as a workaround for moving from old-style namespace packages to new style packages. So, it's more necessary step than initial intention. But ironically this workaround due to tight restriction has lead to common naming convention, which Django doesn't have for example :)
 Interesting about the import redirection... At any rate, I think I prefer the default style, even at the loss of a little consistency in naming.

Hello Charles!

Just an idea, what do you think of "standard" extensions support for peewee like in Flask? So everyone who wants to write extension for peewee creates package like "peewee_foobar" and peewee has special hook for importing these package with:

```
import peewee_ext.foobar
```

So we can put "stable" extensions to that namespace and provide a simple convention for creating extensions via simple package naming.

This is not about less verbosity. Just about a bit cleaner standard. I've played with it and it worked: https://github.com/rudyryk/peewee-ext
