I see what you mean - it looks like its not possible to have one shared lib dependent on another. Thats news to me, and sucks.
I agree that using shared libraries in OpenDX is a very good thing. There
have been those that have argued strongly in that direction for years, and
I'm glad things are moving in that direction.
Even so, I'm not comfortable throwing away functionality. So I wonder if
we ought to consider leaving libDXL a static library and requiring that it
link in the libDXlite shared lib. That would minimize the static portion -
thereby minimizing the exposure to the app builder thats inherant in static
libs, since we minimze the code in the static lib.
Greg
Randall Hopper
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:
[email protected]
Sent by: cc:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [opendx-dev] Re:
libDXL trying to build
son.ibm.com
07/16/2002 09:55 AM
Please respond to
opendx-dev
Gregory D Abram:
|Why can't object.o be in libDXL jusr like it is now? You won't need to
add
|libDXlite in unless you use something from object.o.
...
If you build a shared library IIRC you hit problems, as the symbol
resolution requirements for shared libraries are different than for static
libraries.
Randy
--
Randall Hopper (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
Lockheed Martin Operation Support
EPA Scientific Visualization Center
US EPA N127-01; RTP, NC 27711
