On 2009-11-20, at 15:19, Max Carlson wrote: > P T Withington wrote: >> [cc-ing Laszlo-dev] [...] >>> Which got me thinking: could we allow library compilation for a specific >>> runtime(s)? Either the library would support a given runtime, or it >>> wouldn't. >>> >>> Then we could put off this notion of runtime-independent libraries for a >>> little while. It's not clear to me that cross-runtime lzos are a >>> requirement at this time - though they would be nice. >> Good point. There are really 2 parts to runtime-indepencence for binary >> libraries: >> 1) Make the compiler emit a binary library in a format that can be linked on >> any platform. This is what the majority of the current work has been >> toward. There were some major bugs in the old binary library format that >> meant that even if you compiled for a particular platform, it just wasn't >> going to work (there were some parts that were hard-wired to assume a >> particular target platform). That's mostly fixed. >> 2) IWBRN to have a single binary library that could be linked and compiled >> to any platform. I think we are real close to having this, modulo the >> <switch> issue (http://jira.openlaszlo.org/jira/browse/LPP-8623), and as you >> point out, the <passthrough> tag >> (http://jira.openlaszlo.org/jira/browse/LPP-8608). If necessary, we can >> fall back to runtime-specific binary libraries, but I'd like to push a >> little further to see if we can avoid that. >> Note that if you are not actually binary-compiling a file (for example >> mediastream above is an autoinclude, not part of the library you are binary >> compiling), the compiler could issue a less dreadful warning, because the >> only issue then is that if you define new <class>s in the switch body, they >> will not be seen by the binary compiler and could lead to the compile >> failing (if there is a class in the binary compile that depends on a class >> defined inside a <switch> in an external include). > > Sounds good. Can you make this change?
Working on it right now. > >> So, one solution to the <switch> problem is simply to move any <switch>s >> that you _must_ have, out of the binary-compiled library to an external >> include that is not binary-compiled. > > Yeah, I think we can do that for a lot of the cases. For webtop, refactoring > isn't my department - I think we'll need input there. I'll send them a message.
