From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 07:55:17 -0800 Message-ID: From: David Leimbach To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00163698963579ae8f0495197766 Subject: Re: [9fans] another type of static linking: send all the shared libraries with the program! Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7ef5eb98-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --00163698963579ae8f0495197766 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Jeff Sickel 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 > > > --00163698963579ae8f0495197766 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Jeff Si= ckel <jas@c= orpus-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 bundl= es? =A0Ship
> the whole directory (.app) with all requisite frameworks and libs?

That's the recommended approach for certain types of distribution= s. =A0The alternative approach is to not do shared/dynamic libraries in the= code you ship. =A0That way the only dynamically linked code is that used i= n the system frameworks. =A0Many folks also find that their applications la= unch faster when not traversing all sorts of dyldhell.

2-level namespaces help with that too. =A0= You can bind paths to particular shared library instances that you're i= nterested in.
=A0

There's still the open-ended question of bundles of loadable modules, i= f you need them.

There's also this = vague memory I have of being deeply concerned about a direction I swear I r= ead somewhere on an Apple developer mailing list about static libraries not= being supported going forward with Mac OS X. =A0
=A0

-jas



--00163698963579ae8f0495197766--