[Spread-users] Shared Libraries

[Jonathan Stanton]

I can say that we havn't tested it almost at all (which is why it is hidden
in the makefile and not documented :-))

The model up to now has been to only support static libraries, but newer
daemons could be dropped in and old apps compiled against old libraries
would work just fine. Since very little functionality (or bugs) are in the
libraries, most apps wouldn't need to link in newer libraries anyway, unless
they wanted to get some new feature that was added to them -- and that would
require source changes anyway to use the new feature.

As more apps use Spread and possibly more apps on the same machine use it
(and some users require shared libraries for stuff like the apache modules) 
I know there is interest in supporting shared libraries (which is why it is
undocumented, but exists in the makefiles :-)) It will change the rules for
backwards compatibility so we have been cautious with enabling it.

I would also be interested in any feedback on how the shared libraries are
working and thoughts on how useful they are compared with the static ones.

Jonathan

On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 08:14:50AM +1100, Joshua Goodall wrote:
> Has anyone tested spread/clients using the .so's rather than the
> .a libraries?
> 
> Now that I'm a package maintainer, I care about these things (to
> avoid questions of the form "I upgraded my Spread package but my
> binaries are still using the old library... why?").
> 
> Joshua
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spread-users mailing list
> Spread-users at lists.spread.org
> http://lists.spread.org/mailman/listinfo/spread-users

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan R. Stanton         jonathan at cs.jhu.edu
Dept. of Computer Science   
Johns Hopkins University    
-------------------------------------------------------