this is fantastic @KazuCocoa! one question: so let's say I wanted to create a client sidecar module for people using my custom driver. I could instruct my users to do something like this:

from appium import webdriver
from mydriver_client import update_driver

driver = webdriver.Remote(...)
update_driver(driver)
result = driver.my_custom_command(args)

or, if I wanted to wrap the entire lib, I could do:

from mydriver_client import webdriver
driver = webdriver.Remote(...)
result = driver.my_custom_command(args)

as the client extension library author I could easily provide both interfaces. The latter interface is more concise, but the former interface could be used if there are multiple client extensions that need to be applied to the driver.

i guess one other thought I have: is there any reason for us to standardize the extension interface to make it easy for extension authors and users? so we could do something like this from an end user perspective:

from appium import webdriver
import client_ext1
import client_ext2

driver = webdriver.Remote(..., extensions=[client_ext1, client_ext2])
driver.custom_command_from_ext1()
driver.custom_command_from_ext2()

so that our appium client code knows how to extract command information from the 3rd party client extensions.

what do you think @KazuCocoa @mykola-mokhnach?

ah, seems good idea > extensions=[client_ext1, client_ext2]
Let me try it out

Yeah this way all client extensions can have a simple template to follow. For example we could publish the find_by_image commands a built-in extension module that people could just copy

from appium import webdriver
from appium.extensions import images

driver = webdriver.Remote(..., extensions=[images])

this mirrors the fact that the image functionality is a plugin now.