[issue9086] Wrong linking terminology in windows FAQ
New submission from John Miller gyuval@gmail.com:
The 'How can I embed Python' section in the 'Python on Windows FAQ' (http://docs.python.org/faq/windows.html) uses wrong terms: What the FAQ calls static linking and dynamic linking are actally two forms of dynamic linking - load-time dynamic linking and run-time dynamic linking, respectively. Static linking means something else entirely - linking with a library that itself contains the implementation, i.e. there will be no usage of the DLL at all. Since the FAQ states that pythonNN.lib is just an import lib, static linking isn't really an option with this library.
Also the FAQ states that 'The drawback to dynamic linking is that your app won’t run if pythonNN.dll does not exist on your system'. This is misleading for two reasons: - If the application uses the DLL, it won't run as expected if the DLL doesn't exist, regardless of how it loads the DLL. - Of the two linking options, load-time dynamic linking (what the FAQ refers to as static linking) is actually the one that handles the missing DLL more badly: The app will crash upon loading. If run-time dynamic linking is used, loading of the DLL happens in the application code, and it can handle it however it chooses to - it can inform the user, disable the feature that needs the DLL, etc.
---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation messages: 108700 nosy: docs@python, john.miller priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: Wrong linking terminology in windows FAQ versions: Python 2.6
_______________________________________ Python tracker report@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue9086 _______________________________________
Changes by Stefan Krah stefan-usenet@bytereef.org:
---------- nosy: +skrah
_______________________________________ Python tracker report@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue9086 _______________________________________
Terry J. Reedy tjreedy@udel.edu added the comment:
3.1 docs say same. For *nix, I would agree with your view of 'static', but perhaps MS uses a different terminology. Martin?
Or maybe the doc writer is using a local def of static simply as a terse, if potentially confusing, alternative to 'load-time linking'. But that could just be .lib linking versus .dll linking, which is crystal clear. Can you write an alternative paragraph or two that you think is better?
---------- nosy: +loewis, tjreedy versions: +Python 2.7, Python 3.1, Python 3.2
_______________________________________ Python tracker report@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue9086 _______________________________________
Martin v. Löwis martin@v.loewis.de added the comment:
I agree with John: this paragraph is technically incorrect. See
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms681914%28v=VS.85%29.aspx
for an "official" definition of the relevant terms.
I vaguely recall objecting to that text when it got added, but in the discussion, it would have meant that I would have to rewrite the text myself, which I didn't want to (maybe I'm confusing this with something else, though).
In any case, it would be possible to actually use static linking as well for Python. There are currently no VS projects defined to create a static library, and such a thing couldn't dynamically load modules (which might not be necessary for embedding).
I agree with Terry that it would be best if John would produce some text he's happy with.
----------
_______________________________________ Python tracker report@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue9086 _______________________________________
Georg Brandl georg@python.org added the comment:
Okay, I removed mention of static linking and used John's terms "load-time" and "run-time" linking in r85618. I also removed the note that pythonXY.dll is only needed in one case, since it's not true.
---------- nosy: +georg.brandl resolution: -> fixed status: open -> closed
_______________________________________ Python tracker report@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue9086 _______________________________________
participants (5)
-
Georg Brandl -
John Miller
-
Martin v. Löwis
-
Stefan Krah
-
Terry J. Reedy