On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 09:03:51PM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In fact, the only company > I know of that makes use of shared libraries for SQLite is Apple.
Solaris will be shipping SQLite 3.x as a shared library. > They can get away with this because they control the operating > system. But notice that 3rd-party products that run on a Mac > still generally statically link against their own SQLite rather > than use whatever shared library that Apple supplies. The same applies to Solaris. 3rd party products will be free to use the version shipped with the OS, but depending what stability we decide to accord to SQLite 3.x, we may either not update it across incompatible changes (and/or ship multiple versions), or we may update it across incompatible changes at any time. As for DLL hell... My impression is that multiple instances of SQLite 3.x can exist in the same process provided that: a) no two instances share the same database files, b) they are linked/loaded in such a way as to avoid symbol conflicts (this can be done with group+local linker/rtld options). This sort of situation is likely to arise in pluggable frameworks (e.g., PAM). > I think you are better of picking a version of SQLite that > you like, making it a part of your source tree, and going > with that. It is simple enough to upgrade - just drop in a > new file. Trying to "install" SQLite or making dependencies > on SQLite just complicates matters unnecessarily. Would you recommend that we not make SQLite 3.x in Solaris available to third parties? Nico -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
