On 27/01/11 15:48, gdgqler wrote: > Of course. but why at runtime? Code reuse and/or share-ability. If you have 10 applications running and each one needs the same library code, isn't it much better to have one copy used by all, rather than running the system with 10 copies of the same code? That way, the space hogged by the 9 duplicates can be used to run another application?
> It seems dangerous to me to rely on a routine which might have changed > since the last time you looked at it. How can you know that the > next time your program runs it won't produce different or faulty > results because the DLL now contains something different? Works fine for Linux, HP-UX, Windows etc! The usual (Unix) case is that when version 6 of a library comes out, a link to the new *.so file is created, and you get an *.so.6 created. This is what your program is looking for. Other programs may be looking for *.so.5 = so they find that their link, created when release 5 went in, is still pointing at the *.so file, even though it is now the *.so from release 6. The versions are backwards compatible in that features in .5 are still there in .6. Easy. On QDOSMSQ the similar thing would be "things" I suspect, They are shared - the Menu Thing that Jochen produces is shared and usable by all sorts of programs, and only one version has to be in RAM at the time. Cheers, Norman. -- Norman Dunbar Dunbar IT Consultants Ltd Registered address: Thorpe House 61 Richardshaw Lane Pudsey West Yorkshire United Kingdom LS28 7EL Company Number: 05132767 _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
