On May 12, 2007, at 11:36 PM, Brandon Van Every wrote:
Do Mac OS X users think this is worth doing?
I personally do not think it worth doing. Ideally any application that used chicken would distribute the necessary .dylib files with the app, either as a framework for user level or system wide installation, or as part of the application bundle itself. In either case, having this component be a pluggable dynamic library would allow kinds of of application updates - those where chicken itself or some egg the app used was updated - by simply replacing this framework or library rather than replacing the whole application. This of course becomes even more convenient if there are several applications that use the chicken framework or library.
Basically it comes down to the fact that modern Mac OS X applications are really directories with lots of components in them, not monolithic files. This being the case it makes more sense to use dynamic linking. At a higher level (politically speaking) I've found over the years that doing things that are deprecated by Apple is a good way to get burned down the road.
regards, Ralph Raffael Cavallaro, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
