On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Jeff Sickel <[email protected]>wrote:
> > On Nov 13, 2010, at 5:14 PM, David Leimbach wrote: > > > Isn't this what Apple does recommend you do with application bundles? > Ship > > the whole directory (.app) with all requisite frameworks and libs? > > That's the recommended approach for certain types of distributions. The > alternative approach is to not do shared/dynamic libraries in the code you > ship. That way the only dynamically linked code is that used in the system > frameworks. Many folks also find that their applications launch faster when > not traversing all sorts of dyldhell. > 2-level namespaces help with that too. You can bind paths to particular shared library instances that you're interested in. > > There's still the open-ended question of bundles of loadable modules, if > you need them. > There's also this vague memory I have of being deeply concerned about a direction I swear I read somewhere on an Apple developer mailing list about static libraries not being supported going forward with Mac OS X. > > -jas > > >
