>Thanks for info. Why one needs static for DLL is beyond me. Why not use DLL
>for libxml2 if using DLL distribution - nobody will be updating your
>application and with a DLL they could update libxml2 ... ouch. I always use
>static with >static - like I care that the application is a little
Thanks for info. Why one needs static for DLL is beyond me. Why not use
DLL for libxml2 if using DLL distribution - nobody will be updating your
application and with a DLL they could update libxml2 . ouch. I always use
static with static - like I care that the application is a little bigger and
I have a library that uses the static libxml2 library. My library is
distributed in three ways: a DLL, a static library that has the libxml2 library
merged, and a static library that does not have libxml2 merged.
I have a Windows environment where my DLL is late-bound and being loaded and
