2007/11/11, Robert de Vries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > You are very active on TSP those days keep going :=)
>
> If you are fine with the attached patch I will commit it.
Personnally I am.
I think as usual unless anyone step in and shout not to do so
(for good reason) then you can commit.
> I think we should add version numbers to the .so files and also add version
> scripts to the link lines of the .so files.
Yes we should version our shared libs.
but I have no experience in setting-up "clean" shared lib numbering
may you can expose us (or point us to appropriate URL) what
you would like to do, concerning shared lib numbering.
> I also would like to see that some of the .so files to be combined.
> To link a consumer application you have to link against 3 tsp libraries:
> tsp_consumer tsp_common and tsp_services.
Yes true, the splitting have its meaning:
tsp_common is the common set between provider and consumer
and should contains common data type definitions
(with associated functions/method)
tsp_services only contain ringbuf and tsp_time, ringbuf contains no code at all
since its all plain C MACROs. It could contains
"other" helper
code which is not specific to TSP.
As of today this a little bit empty lib.
tsp_consumer/provider contains specific consumer-side (resp. provider)
functions including command channel (ONC RPC, XML-RPC, etc...) and
data channel handling.
> The sizes of these libraries are:
> 175236 /usr/lib/libtsp_consumer.so
> 10546 /usr/lib/libtsp_services.so
> 12173 /usr/lib/libtsp_util.so
>
> For a provider the same libraries are needed (replace consumer lib with
> provider lib)
tsp_services may be merged into tsp_common but I would rather
keep tsp_provider/consumer separate from tsp_common unless
we have a good reason not to do so.
Could you tell us why you would rather have less shared libs?
--
Erk
_______________________________________________
Tsp-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tsp-devel
