In addition to labeling a directory as a Python package and defining __all__, __init__.py allows you to define any variable at the package level. Doing so is often convenient if a package defines something that will be imported frequently, in an API-like fashion. This pattern promotes adherence to the Pythonic "flat is better than nested" philosophy.
##An example##
Here is an example from one of my projects, in which I frequently import a sessionmaker called Session to interact with my database. I wrote a "database" package with a few modules:
database/
__init__.py
schema.py
insertions.py
queries.py
My __init__.py contains the following code:
import os
from sqlalchemy.orm import sessionmaker
from sqlalchemy import create_engine
engine = create_engine(os.environ['DATABASE_URL'])
Session = sessionmaker(bind=engine)
Since I define Session here, I can start a new session using the syntax below. This code would be the same executed from inside or outside of the "database" package directory.
from database import Session
session = Session()
Of course, this is a small convenience -- the alternative would be to define Session in a new file like "create_session.py" in my database package, and start new sessions using:
from database.create_session import Session
session = Session()
##Further reading##
There is a pretty interesting reddit thread covering appropriate uses of __init__.py here:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Python/comments/1bbbwk/whats_your_opinion_on_what_to_include_in_init_py/
The majority opinion seems to be that __init__.py files should be very thin to avoid violating the "explicit is better than implicit" philosophy. Using