* Paolo Bonzini ([email protected]) wrote: > On 08/17/2011 09:40 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> There are probably others, but I think it gives an idea of the main >> scenarios I consider. I start to like (3) more and more, and I'm tempted >> to move to it, but I would really like feedback on this API matter >> before I take any decision. > > I also think (3) is the ugliest, but also the only really practical choice.
Yep, I share your view on ugliness, but sometimes the requirement overrides it. > > Shipping it as a .c file rather than a library (like gnulib) might also > be a good way. Churn in this kind of code is actually a bad thing. Shipping a .c will not be practical for non-gpl and non-lgpl applications, at the very least, and will make library upgrades a real challenge. Hence my preference for a .so. Thanks, Mathieu > > Paolo -- Mathieu Desnoyers Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com _______________________________________________ ltt-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
