Re: Dynamically loading frontends?
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Kalle Dalheimer wrote:
Hi,
this might have been discussed already...
Is there anything that speaks against linking the frontends dynamically?
Linking LyX takes considerable time (strange: more time than linking e.g.
Konqueror with much more code, taken everything together), and if you only
work on one frontend you could save that step of linking the binary.
This might also open the path to switching frontends dynamically later
("skins" :-)), even though this might have a whole slew of other problems...
Kalle
I briefly mentioned the idea before. I think it would be a great
idea but I don't know anything about libtool. As far as I'm concerned
if someone (you ?) can get it working that would be great (especially for
those of use regularly switching frontends)
john
--
"The path you specified contains too many directories. Delete one or more
directories or clear the Include Subdirectories checkbox."
- Microsoft Office
Re: Dynamically loading frontends?
"John" == John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Kalle Dalheimer wrote:
Hi,
this might have been discussed already...
Is there anything that speaks against linking the frontends
dynamically? Linking LyX takes considerable time (strange: more
time than linking e.g. Konqueror with much more code, taken
everything together), and if you only work on one frontend you
could save that step of linking the binary.
This might also open the path to switching frontends dynamically
later ("skins" :-)), even though this might have a whole slew of
other problems...
Kalle
John I briefly mentioned the idea before. I think it would be a great
John idea but I don't know anything about libtool. As far as I'm
John concerned if someone (you ?) can get it working that would be
John great (especially for those of use regularly switching
John frontends)
It used to work at some time when configuring with --enable-shared
--disable-static.
JMarc
Re: Dynamically loading frontends?
On Friday, 16. March 2001 11:56, John Levon wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Kalle Dalheimer wrote:
Hi,
this might have been discussed already...
Is there anything that speaks against linking the frontends dynamically?
Linking LyX takes considerable time (strange: more time than linking e.g.
Konqueror with much more code, taken everything together), and if you
only work on one frontend you could save that step of linking the binary.
This might also open the path to switching frontends dynamically later
("skins" :-)), even though this might have a whole slew of other
problems...
Kalle
I briefly mentioned the idea before. I think it would be a great
idea but I don't know anything about libtool. As far as I'm concerned
if someone (you ?) can get it working that would be great (especially for
those of use regularly switching frontends)
I am not much of a libtool wizard either (and am very glad to have one in
KDE), but I can always try to recognize the pattern and reuse some stuff from
KDE.
Kalle
--
Matthias Kalle Dalheimer
President CEO/VD
Klarlvdalens Datakonsult AB
Fax +46-563-540028
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dynamically loading frontends?
Kalle Dalheimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | I briefly mentioned the idea before. I think it would be a great | idea but I don't know anything about libtool. As far as I'm concerned | if someone (you ?) can get it working that would be great (especially for | those of use regularly switching frontends) | | I am not much of a libtool wizard either (and am very glad to have one in | KDE), but I can always try to recognize the pattern and reuse some stuff from | KDE. It is actually quite easy. We also used partial linking for some time and I tried out dynamiclinking, however when we are still trying to figure out how the different api's will look it is not time to switch to dynamic linking. certainly I want dynamic linking, but I'd like to code base stabilize a bit more first. Lgb
Re: Dynamically loading frontends?
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Kalle Dalheimer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this might have been discussed already...
>
> Is there anything that speaks against linking the frontends dynamically?
> Linking LyX takes considerable time (strange: more time than linking e.g.
> Konqueror with much more code, taken everything together), and if you only
> work on one frontend you could save that step of linking the binary.
>
> This might also open the path to switching frontends dynamically later
> ("skins" :-)), even though this might have a whole slew of other problems...
>
> Kalle
I briefly mentioned the idea before. I think it would be a great
idea but I don't know anything about libtool. As far as I'm concerned
if someone (you ?) can get it working that would be great (especially for
those of use regularly switching frontends)
john
--
"The path you specified contains too many directories. Delete one or more
directories or clear the Include Subdirectories checkbox."
- Microsoft Office
Re: Dynamically loading frontends?
> "John" == John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Kalle Dalheimer wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> this might have been discussed already...
>>
>> Is there anything that speaks against linking the frontends
>> dynamically? Linking LyX takes considerable time (strange: more
>> time than linking e.g. Konqueror with much more code, taken
>> everything together), and if you only work on one frontend you
>> could save that step of linking the binary.
>>
>> This might also open the path to switching frontends dynamically
>> later ("skins" :-)), even though this might have a whole slew of
>> other problems...
>>
>> Kalle
John> I briefly mentioned the idea before. I think it would be a great
John> idea but I don't know anything about libtool. As far as I'm
John> concerned if someone (you ?) can get it working that would be
John> great (especially for those of use regularly switching
John> frontends)
It used to work at some time when configuring with --enable-shared
--disable-static.
JMarc
Re: Dynamically loading frontends?
On Friday, 16. March 2001 11:56, John Levon wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Kalle Dalheimer wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > this might have been discussed already...
> >
> > Is there anything that speaks against linking the frontends dynamically?
> > Linking LyX takes considerable time (strange: more time than linking e.g.
> > Konqueror with much more code, taken everything together), and if you
> > only work on one frontend you could save that step of linking the binary.
> >
> > This might also open the path to switching frontends dynamically later
> > ("skins" :-)), even though this might have a whole slew of other
> > problems...
> >
> > Kalle
>
> I briefly mentioned the idea before. I think it would be a great
> idea but I don't know anything about libtool. As far as I'm concerned
> if someone (you ?) can get it working that would be great (especially for
> those of use regularly switching frontends)
I am not much of a libtool wizard either (and am very glad to have one in
KDE), but I can always try to recognize the pattern and reuse some stuff from
KDE.
Kalle
--
Matthias Kalle Dalheimer
President & CEO/VD
Klarälvdalens Datakonsult AB
Fax +46-563-540028
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dynamically loading frontends?
Kalle Dalheimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > I briefly mentioned the idea before. I think it would be a great | > idea but I don't know anything about libtool. As far as I'm concerned | > if someone (you ?) can get it working that would be great (especially for | > those of use regularly switching frontends) | | I am not much of a libtool wizard either (and am very glad to have one in | KDE), but I can always try to recognize the pattern and reuse some stuff from | KDE. It is actually quite easy. We also used partial linking for some time and I tried out dynamiclinking, however when we are still trying to figure out how the different api's will look it is not time to switch to dynamic linking. certainly I want dynamic linking, but I'd like to code base stabilize a bit more first. Lgb
