> -----Original Message----- > From: Murray Cumming [mailto:murrayc@;t-online.de] > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 10:44 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Proposal Review: Using C++ Namespace > > > On Mon, 2002-11-04 at 16:29, Brad Settlemyer wrote: > > Could you please explain some of the benefits of encoding the > version number > > into the namespace name? > > > > I'm worried that this is going to cause me some of the same > problems that > > having the version name encoded into the library causes. > > Major "API versions" absolutely should be in the library name. How else > will an application benefit from bugfixes in the Xerces-C++ library that > is uses, without relinking that application against a new version of the > library. This is all quite normal. >
I think I may have been unclear here. On UNIX systems, the library mechanism has explicit support for versioning uses naming suffixes. Xerces does not use those, instead it embeds the version number into the name. E.g., rather than libxerces.so.1.7.0 we get libxerces_1_7_0.so.0.0.0, or something like that. This means I have to explicitly link to a specific release number rather than to a major release or version if I use their library. I (and many others, it seems) build my own library to avoid this issue. > Apparently this is fixed now (I can't tell because _no_ library is > installed by "make install" now), but in the past it was very annoying > to have to release new versions of applications just so that they worked > with slightly-updated newer versions of Xerces. > > > I know that > > several integrators have complained about that on this list > multiple times, > > and that many of the developers, myself included, are building > the library > > to the name libxerces.xxx manually to avoid these problems. I'm worried > > that this is just placing a xerces internal implementation > detail into my > > software, and I can't figure out what the extra value is. > > The proposal did seem to say that a non-versioned namespace name could > be used to refer to the latest version, so I don't think this would be > visible to you unless you want to use that functionality. > You are correct, of course. I missed the reference to the namespace assignment. That seems to be an elegant solution for those who want to have the version, and for those who do not. I certainly support the inclusion of a namespace. Thanks for pointing out my mistake, Brad --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
