I static link whenever possible. Runs everywhere, no "DLL Hell". No forced reboots because DLL's are still cached in memory. If I want to upgrade, I upgrade the whole app and release another one. Over the past 5 years, my main app has grown from 900K to just under 3 megabytes. I have yet to see anything other than theoretical benefits to using DLL's. Disks/RAM and networks having grown to the point where reliability is far more important than executable size.
I have tried numerous times to use DLL's. It'll work fine on my machine then cause problems on a significant percentage of my customers machines (many times it's their fault but, try explaining that to them). C Friday, February 3, 2006, 7:09:38 PM, you wrote: CJ> Whether to use an external DLL or have the functionality embedded? CJ> I have a both-ways compromise. I store a copy of the DLL inside the app as a CJ> resource. Then if the DLL doesn't extst in the app dir I copy the DLL out, CJ> but this also allows me to update the DLL to something more recent by CJ> replacing just the DLL. As for using a common sqlite.dll with a whole pile CJ> of 3rd party application - I wouldn't take the risk for all the reason CJ> already mentioned. This is probably not the nicest solution, but my CJ> customers tend to be "zero-install" sort of people - ie copy the application CJ> to another machine and hope for the best, so I like an application that CJ> looks after itself. CJ> Regards, CJ> Carl. -- Best regards, Teg mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
