Michael Van Canneyt schrieb: > > On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Florian Klaempfl wrote: > >> Leonardo M. Ramé schrieb: >>> Reading a post in "public.mseide-msegui.talk", the mseide discussion >>> list, I found this: >>> >>> "Florian has committed the beginning of dynamic packages support". >>> >>> With "Dynamic Packages" you mean a platform independent way of >>> implementing something similar to >>> .Dlls (or .bpl)? without creating each library its own memory manager?, >>> where objects can flow >>> across all libraries without problems? >>> >> If it is finished, it would be something like this yes. However, I'am >> not convinced of the use of dyn. loaded packages for an OSS project so I >> played only with it. > > Hm. I don't see what OSS or not OSS has to do with it ?
Packages have major drawbacks - DLL/shared lib hell; remember each fpc build gets/needs it's own set of packages - memory footprint of programs increase significantly since no smartlinking is possible, I created once a pure shared linked lazarus: it depended on 50 MB of shared libs. - speed of programs decreases by ~10% because each global variable access gets indirect (like pic) - major blow up of installer size > > Packages are IMHO a pre-requisite for any good plugin system. > It allows you to enable/disable certain features of a program based on the > particular system you install the package on, without having to recompile > your complete application for this particular system. Then it's the task of a programmer to design a proper plugin interface. A plugin interface based on packages (in the delphi sense) requires that the main program and the plugin use exactly the same compiler and rtl. > > Lazarus is an IDE and therefore recompilation is IMHO an acceptable solution, > since the person using it is a developer (even so, this would be too much > asked > for most devels in my company) but the same cannot be said for most end-user > applications, OSS or not. For example, I don't think we can expect an end > user to recompile XMMS if he decides to use ogg vorbis files instead of > .mp3... > > Apart from the recompilation issue, packages allow you to have type-safety in > plugins. A normal dll does not offer this (which is why techniques such as > COM are used on Windows). I could not build my day-time job application if > packages did not exist... > > So I do think packages are really a must; I lack the skill to implement them > in the compiler, but will be glad to assist in any design issues or even > creating any RTL code that you would need, if this is the problem for you. I see only a real use of packages if one doesn't want to distribute the source of the IDE like Delphi. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
