[PD] external loading suggestion
fbar at footils.org
Mon Jul 19 10:24:42 CEST 2004
Lex Ein hat gesagt: // Lex Ein wrote:
> Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> > Part of putting all of the code into a central repository
> ....like herding the sweetest, but most unwilling cats: not all
> developers will plant their code in the CVS.
For externals, the CVS already almost is a standard.
> > and also compiling all of the contributed objects as individual
> > files
> Unless I misunderstand you, this requires breaking up existing libs
> into separate objects. Lots of work, and the original developers
> won't want to do it, and won't want to touch it after someone's
> dismantled it.
Yes, this is a problem, and breaking up libraries only should be done
as a last resort. But as shown by IEMLib technically it can be done
and then it magically solves all nameclashes present in that library
Single externals are a solution, which works often (IEMLib) but not
everytime (Gem, also I don't understand at all why Gem still has a
> > allows us to eliminate such conflicts.
> No, that means you'll still have two different, say, "counter"
> single-entity libs and hence [counter], and users will still never
> be able to reach both of them.
The problem with libraries is, that you cannot disable an object
inside a library, and you aren't aware, what objects are in which
library. With single externals, everything is visible in the
> > So if you use the packages (Debian, Windows, MacOS X), then there
> > won't be conflicts if you don't use any libs.
> Who will make the choice of which objects 'live' without renaming, and who
> 'dies' (gets renamed)?
We. The people on this list and on pd-dev and the CVS maintainers.
It's just that we need to find a way to communicate or vote, which
objects should be the standard "counter" or "prepend" objects.
I agree with you than some kind of namespace would be very useful, but
it alone won't solve the nameclash problem, we also need socal
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
More information about the Pd-list