[PD-dev] individual files vs. libs for externals

Thomas Grill t.grill at gmx.net
Mon Jun 9 15:52:27 CEST 2003

Hi Guenter,

> > By the way, as i'm a strong supporter of external libraries... what are
> > reasons why i would not want to use them?
> >
> - they are not automatically loaded, therefore if you want to use one
>   external the whole library has to be loaded
> - you have to put a lib flag for every library you want to load

Clearly there has to be a better solution than that. I'm really not
satisfied with the current PD configuration functionality.

> - they are not as flexible  for distribution

why? I think they are easier on the contrary

> - it is hard (if not impossible) to implement a system that allows for
> reloading.

Why is it harder to reload a library than a single external?
(to my mind for this there has to be some cooperation by the external

> - they do not fit in the system for externals that we designed for the
>   CVS. (which is based on single externals, actually I do not see any
>   other way the idea could be implemented)

Does flext and the derived externals fit into that system at all?

> What are the arguments against single externals ?

I have no argument against single externals as i use them myself, but i'm
pro using libraries if feasible.
It's possibly only important for me so that may not be enough of an
argument, but for all externals depending on a base class (via c++
inheritance) which is an important flext feature the usage of separate
external binaries is hardly possible as it necessitates the usage of a
shared library file with the base classes, which is even more difficult to
For all externals depending on shared code or data: why would the usage of
an extra shared library be easier than the usage of a single external
library file?

best greetings,

More information about the Pd-dev mailing list