Giovanni Bajo wrote: > I don't think I fully understand the reason why additional .pyd modules were > built into the .dll. OTOH, this does not help anyone, since:
The reason is simple: a single DLL is easier to maintain. You only need to add the new files to the VC project, edit config.c, and be done. No new project to create for N different configurations, no messing with the MSI builder. In addition, having everything in a single DLL speeds up Python startup a little, since less file searching is necessary. > Can we at least undo this unfortunate move in time for 2.5? I would be > grateful > if *at least* the CJK codecs (which are like 1Mb big) are splitted out of > python25.dll. IMHO, I would prefer having *more* granularity, rather than > *less*. If somebody would formulate a policy (i.e. conditions under which modules go into python2x.dll, vs. going into separate files), I'm willing to implement it. This policy should best be formulated in a PEP. The policy should be flexible wrt. to future changes. I.e. it should *not* say "do everything as in Python 2.3", because this means I would have to rip off the modules added after 2.3 entirely (i.e. not ship them at all). Instead, the policy should give clear guidance even for modules that are not yet developed. It should be a PEP, so that people can comment. For example, I think I would be -1 on a policy "make python2x.dll as minimal as possible, containing only modules that are absolutely needed for startup". Regards, Martin -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
