Hi, On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 03:54:06PM +0100, Sebastian Rittau wrote: > On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 01:17:50PM +0100, Emile van Bergen wrote: > > > If linking plays such a big part in the (noticeable) startup time of > > these applications, then IMHO that signifies broken design, and indeed, > > inventing a new .so for every three functions /is/ broken design. > > Modularization is not broken but good design. Design is all about /how/ you modularize. Endless modularization is not good design. Good design is good modularization. > > In most cases you need exactly matching minor versions for all those > > KDE/Gnome support libraries anyway - just look at how often the soname > > versions are incremented. > > This is false (at least in the GNOME case). $ apt-cache search gnome | grep '^lib[a-z-]*[0-9][0-9]' libgal19 - G App Libs (run time library) libgconf11 - GNOME configuration database system libraries libgnome32 - The Gnome libraries libgnomeprint15 - The GNOME Print architecture - runtime library libgnomeui32 - The Gnome libraries (User Interface) libgnorba27 - Gnome CORBA services libguppi16 - GNOME graph and plot component > > Make no illusions, nobody's going to use your utility functions > > standalone anyway, outside of those environments. > > Wrong. There are many programs that use only a subset of GNOME's > functionality. There are especially many applications out there that > build only on GTK+. I wasn't referring to GTK+. I specifically mentioned GTK+ and the rest of Gnome as the point where a good split could be made. Cheers, Emile. -- E-Advies / Emile van Bergen | emile@e-advies.info tel. +31 (0)70 3906153 | http://www.e-advies.info
Attachment:
pgpdL7NlSPWay.pgp
Description: PGP signature