[PD-dev] individual files vs. libs for externals
geiger at xdv.org
Mon Jun 9 17:17:53 CEST 2003
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, Thomas Grill wrote:
> > - they are not as flexible for distribution
> why? I think they are easier on the contrary
Ok, I have a patch that uses xx from xxlib, yx from xylib and zz from
zzlib. In order to distribute this patch to my friends and not let them go
through recompilation nightmares I have to include the whole libraries
for win/lin/osx, whereas with single externals I just have to include the
respective pd_linux files. (Additionally I do not even need to bother
about externals and library conflicts that might occur on the others
system, because the externals I have put there will be automtically
Ok you say we could improve the configuration system, but why ?
> > - 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
Because for a library you have to search for all externals that are
implemented and reload them, and you do not even know who they are.
> > - 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
So C++ libraries are hardly possible and if so very difficult to handle ?
> 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?
Well, there would be some advantages to that approach at least. For
example you can fix things in the library without requesting all
flext external developers to recompile.
Anyhow, sometimes the shared code size is that small that it doesn't
pay off to make a dll. I have the dream that the pd devlopers would
in this case work on a common library of support functions that are
probably missing fro pd, and which , based on this work can probably be
moved into pd itself.
As a last word on this topic, I think single externals make it easier
for the pd developers to work together. This is one of the main goals
for the CVS too.
> best greetings,
More information about the Pd-dev