On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Adam Dershowitz wrote:
However if people each develop a plugin that only works on their personal development machine it will complicate things.
Hm. Yes. But the same fault (writing non-portable code) could be done under ordinary static linking too. It would be noticed earlier though. =)
And many of the common architectures handle dynamic objects differently.
Well, dlopen() is POSIX at least. Windows has another syscall (doubt if SDL handles that - ?) So it takes a few #ifdef's.
If each person who does a build has to build all of the plug-ins at the same time, then they might as well just be included in the FG source code, and statically link.
The scenario I'm worried about is if there would, in a future, be a large number of various flight instruments and other airplane model specific things implemented (and statically linked), building up an unecessary large fgfs binary containing lots of (mostly) unused code. That will however probably not happen in some time yet -- unfortunately. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
