Re: [DMUSIC] cleanups, fixes and IDirectMusicStyle loading
Raphael <fenix(a)club-internet.fr> writes:
Alexandre, instead using copy of the sames files can we use a static library for sharing this code ?
I'm afraid not, we can't create a separate static library every time we need to share some code between dlls, it doesn't scale. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org
On Thu, 13 May 2004 21:05:13 -0700, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
I'm afraid not, we can't create a separate static library every time we need to share some code between dlls, it doesn't scale.
How does it not scale? Surely copying code is worse from a scalability perspective?
Mike Hearn wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2004 21:05:13 -0700, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
I'm afraid not, we can't create a separate static library every time we need to share some code between dlls, it doesn't scale.
How does it not scale? Surely copying code is worse from a scalability perspective?
What about building a static lib and linking it into both shared libs ? Regards DOminik -- Dominik Strasser | Phone: +49 89 234-43691 Infineon Technologies AG | Fax: +49 89 636-42284 CL DAT DF V | E-Mail:Dominik.Strasser(a)infineon.com D-81730 Muenchen | Room: 53-263
Mike Hearn <mh(a)codeweavers.com> writes:
How does it not scale? Surely copying code is worse from a scalability perspective?
It doesn't scale because if you have n dlls you potentially need n^2 static libraries to share code. Obviously we won't need all the combinations, but even a small fraction of that is going to create a big mess. It needs a *very* good reason to create a new library, and if it's just for sharing a couple of structure dumping functions it's not worth it. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 14 May 2004 20:06, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Mike Hearn <mh(a)codeweavers.com> writes:
How does it not scale? Surely copying code is worse from a scalability perspective?
It doesn't scale because if you have n dlls you potentially need n^2 static libraries to share code. Obviously we won't need all the combinations, but even a small fraction of that is going to create a big mess. It needs a *very* good reason to create a new library, and if it's just for sharing a couple of structure dumping functions it's not worth it.
You are right, but it this case i will copy this 2 sources for 5-6 dlls :( Regards, Raphael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFApR+cp7NA3AmQTU4RAm5QAJ9k3a/hp9Gi0nSgAn4Vsp4fsInJJwCeImbT lBi1Erm1S5Ey0/e8wOwfOkE= =6BBC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 14 May 2004 06:05, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Raphael <fenix(a)club-internet.fr> writes:
Alexandre, instead using copy of the sames files can we use a static library for sharing this code ?
I'm afraid not, we can't create a separate static library every time we need to share some code between dlls, it doesn't scale.
Ok, but it's really boring :( Regards, Raphael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFApR9pp7NA3AmQTU4RAgHHAJ9JNDIlA0kvKk2dbDgJNcd1//SEoQCffxRk vtYtPCw3tae1RtRSyK/+BQ4= =/fGT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (4)
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Dominik Strasser -
Mike Hearn -
Raphael