3
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Hausmann Simon <[email protected]>wrote: > Interesting point. > > In your environment where you are already building your custom version > of Qt, how many processes do you expect to be running simultaneously that > are also using QtSceneGraph (without QtQml/QtQuick)? > > > Simon > > *Fra: *Laszlo Papp > *Sendt: *19:30 torsdag 1. august 2013 > *Til: *Thiago Macieira > *Kopi: *[email protected] > *Emne: *Re: [Development] QtSC: Scene Graph discussion > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Thiago Macieira < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On quinta-feira, 1 de agosto de 2013 17:57:03, Laszlo Papp wrote: >> > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Hausmann Simon >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> > > What is the advantage of this approach over static linkage? >> > >> > 1) Not linking into more applications running. >> > >> > 2) It is also safer for the LGPLv2 license without an exception for >> static >> > linking into commercial code. >> > >> > 3) shared library is more widely used so it is more natural for me. >> >> Advantages 1 and 3 make no difference because you'll be building it on >> your >> own. There will be no sharing of code at runtime. In fact, deploying a >> shared >> library may also make packaging your application more (not less) >> difficult. >> > > Err... 1) does not make a difference on embedded with a small NOR/NAND > flash? Perhaps, you are thinking about desktop? As far as I can tell, it is > such a big difference that we would need reject Qt if we only had the > static linking option. > > I still feel a lot more comfortable with 3) than without. So, yes, 3) is > not necessarily a blocker, just a nice convenience, but 1)-2) are blockers > against using Qt in that way. > >
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
