On Thu, Jul 13, 2000 at 02:34:03PM -0400, James C. Ahlstrom wrote:
> Mark Hammond wrote:
>...
> I guess I haven't made myself clear. I am not proposing
> that we freeze the C interface. I am not proposing that we
> scrutinize any *.pyd's for incompatabilities.
>
> I am proposing that we leave the "python15.dll" name the same.
> I am proposing that the various *.pyd authors themselves either
> provide newer versions, or declare that their *.pyd needs no
> newer version of python15.dll.
As a .pyd part-time author, I'm going to punt *every* time and suggest
people upgrade. I don't have time or inclination to piss around to figure
out whether my PYD is compatible forwards/backwards across revisions.
> It is a matter of odds. If we necessarily rename python15.dll
> for each version release, Python has a 100% chance of failing
> with an obscure error or crashing if it uses any *.pyd at all
> unless all *.pyd are replaced with new versions.
>
> If we do not rename python15.dll, then a *.pyd may or may not
> fail. My guess (only a guess) is that many will work OK.
This is completely untenable.
*) change the python DLL name
failure mode: old modules simply won't load, or they'll fail drastically
*) don't change the name
failure mode: old modules may work, may have *subtle* bugs, or they may
fail miserably
As a user, I want complete guaranteed success or guaranteed failure. That
half-way ground where my application may silently be broken is simply
unacceptable.
You're free to start creating releases in this way. Personally, I don't want
to spend this kind of time and effort, for dubious benefit. I'm also not
going to try to impose that upon PYD authors.
And yes: this is all just IMO. One more vote in the crowd..
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4