Re: [9fans] another type of static linking: send all the shared libraries with the program!

[David Leimbach <leimy2k@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1132 bytes --]

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Jeff Sickel <jas@corpus-callosum.com>wrote:

>
> On Nov 13, 2010, at 5:14 PM, David Leimbach wrote:
>
> > Isn't this what Apple does recommend you do with application bundles?
>  Ship
> > the whole directory (.app) with all requisite frameworks and libs?
>
> That's the recommended approach for certain types of distributions.  The
> alternative approach is to not do shared/dynamic libraries in the code you
> ship.  That way the only dynamically linked code is that used in the system
> frameworks.  Many folks also find that their applications launch faster when
> not traversing all sorts of dyldhell.
>

2-level namespaces help with that too.  You can bind paths to particular
shared library instances that you're interested in.


>
> There's still the open-ended question of bundles of loadable modules, if
> you need them.
>

There's also this vague memory I have of being deeply concerned about a
direction I swear I read somewhere on an Apple developer mailing list about
static libraries not being supported going forward with Mac OS X.


>
> -jas
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1721 bytes --]