Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:31:48 +0100
From: drscofi...@xyzzyxyzzy.net
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] proposal: cleanup and break up region modules
Tleiades wrote:
I'd be much more of a fan of having each module a seperate dll. Files
are cheap too
Tleiades Lauridsen wrote:
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:31:48 +0100
From: drscofi...@xyzzyxyzzy.net
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] proposal: cleanup and break up region modules
Tleiades wrote:
I'd be much more of a fan of having each module a seperate dll
Media AB
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:28:19 +0100 From: drscofi...@xyzzyxyzzy.net To:
opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] proposal: cleanup
and break up region modules Tleiades Lauridsen wrote: Date:
Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:31:48 +0100 From: drscofi...@xyzzyxyzzy.net
MW wrote:
Putting aside the optimisations for now, as I think that is a different
question. As if we are going to have a dynamic module system then those
issues come with it.
While I think having every module in a separate dll/project is too much. As
Stefan said I think we have just
Andersson
Tribal Media AB
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:28:19 +0100
From: drscofi...@xyzzyxyzzy.net
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] proposal: cleanup and break up region
modules
Tleiades Lauridsen wrote:
Date: Thu, 29
Sean Dague wrote:
MW wrote:
Putting aside the optimisations for now, as I think that is a different
question. As if we are going to have a dynamic module system then those
issues come with it.
While I think having every module in a separate dll/project is too much. As
Stefan said I think
Justin Clark-Casey wrote:
Sean Dague wrote:
MW wrote:
Putting aside the optimisations for now, as I think that is a different
question. As if we are going to have a dynamic module system then those
issues come with it.
While I think having every module in a separate dll/project is too
Sean Dague wrote:
[...]
That being said, this isn't an all or nothing approach. I'd say step
one, lets get the modules into a seperate dll (like diva suggested).
Then we can experiment with some level break up and see if it does cause
the end of the world. :) If so, we can quickly go back.
Sean Dague wrote:
Justin Clark-Casey wrote:
Sean Dague wrote:
MW wrote:
Putting aside the optimisations for now, as I think that is a different
question. As if we are going to have a dynamic module system then those
issues come with it.
While I think having every module in a separate
Justin Clark-Casey wrote:
Dr Scofield wrote:
i've been looking at where region modules live in our source tree ---
OpenSim/Region/Modules and OpenSim/Region/Environment/Modules --- and
how they get bundled:
* modules in OpenSim/Region/Modules get their own private DLL
*
I'd be much more of a fan of having each module a seperate dll. Files
are cheap too. :) And that makes it very clear to people what they are
loading, and what they aren't loading.
(On the fear of talking about performance prematurely)
Won't that cause problems for the JIT'er?
Normally
Tleiades wrote:
I'd be much more of a fan of having each module a seperate dll. Files
are cheap too. :) And that makes it very clear to people what they are
loading, and what they aren't loading.
(On the fear of talking about performance prematurely)
Won't that cause problems for the
12 matches
Mail list logo
