Hi! --- Tommi Komulainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 22:45, ext Joaquin Cuenca > Abela wrote: > > [the "libglade" + foo -library instead of "libfoo"] > > > That's the library that it's loaded by > g_module_open in the code that you > > move with your patch, and it's unrelated to the > library that contains the > > real Foo widget. > > Is it really unrelated? It's using the widgets in > the widget library > and thus needs to be linked with it, doesn't it?
Indeed, yes. I missed that loading the helping lib (libgladefoo) will automatically open libfoo. [snip] > In essence the whole module loading could actually > be as simple as the > following (unless I'm missing some fundamental > reason for constructing a > strictly formatted library name - I think it's just > unnecessary.) > "library" is verbatim the attribute value, error > checking and all > ignored for brevity: > > module = g_module_load (g_module_build_path > (MODULES, library)); > if (!module) > module = g_module_load (g_module_build_path (NULL, > library)); That makes perfect sense to me. If none else disagrees, feel free to commit a patch with your suggested changes, which should equal to your earliest patch + this change. Thank you for your collaboration! Cheers, > > > At least that's how I've understood g_module_open > works, please correct > me if I'm wrong. ===== Joaquin Cuenca Abela e98cuenc at yahoo dot com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus _______________________________________________ Glade-devel maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/glade-devel
