"Dominik Vogt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > --KsGdsel6WgEHnImy > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Disposition: inline > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 11:05:36PM +0100, seventh guardian wrote: > > It all starts with this snip from docs/TODO: > >=20 > > - Implement (or at least investigate) dynamic loading of functions > > on systems that support it? > >=20 > > (There is more on that on that file. These are just the first two lines) > >=20 > > Recently I began testing GNU's Libtool on a project of mine, > > particulary using Ltdl. Ltdl is a dynamic library loading framework. > > It allows dynamic loading of modules for an application, or or as a > > last resort for systems not supporting it, either preloading (linking > > just before execution) or static linking (during the compilation > > time). It's very portable and flexible, as you can see from here: > > http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual.html#Tested-platforms > >=20 > > Anyway, it would be great to have the facility to load new styles or > > functions from a library (a ltdl module). Minimalistic systems would > > just load (or compile, depending on the arch) the very basic functions > > and styles, while more "feature-rich" systems would load all of them. > > The unoficial "feature patchsets" would be replaced by style modules > > (it has nothing to do with the current fvwm modules).. And so on. The > > text on docs/TODO explains the whole idea. > > > > For those interested in this, you can find libtool's manual here: > > http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual.html > >=20 > > For now I'm studying the fvwm code to see where this fits. I'm > > thinking of trying it out (in a my local "private branch", as this is > > definitely not a 2.5 feature). If I get to do anything I'll inform > > you. > > Paul added this TODO item ages ago. Specifically he suggested to > make libfvwm a shared library. I am well aware of Libtool's > capabilities, but never was very fond of the idea to use it. No > matter how portable it is, we'd ask for a lot of problems with > library versioning (modules finding a wrong version of the lib). > > The idea to allow dynamic loading of features is nice. But frankly > I think the fvwm core is nowhere near as modular to allow features > being taken out of it. (And even this is an euphemism for the > state of the code).
The TODO item is for modules. -- Dan Espen E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
