Re: Shared library

[glen e. p. ropella]

Ho-Sheng:
> So in other words, it isn't enough to compile Swarm as shared library, but
> portions of the code has to be rewritten? Which portions would they be?

Actually, it is enough.  We just haven't done it.


Tim Keitt:
> If you mean shared library linking at run time versus static linking,
> shared libraries are, in most cases, slower.  (But perhaps you are
> thinking of something else?)  The main advantage to shared libraries
> is that it uses less disk space.  If your machine is extremely memory
> limited, then there might be situations under which run-time linking
> will be faster, but generally this isn't true.
> 
> Tim

I agree that *one* advantage is in disk space (and space used
by memory resident apps, too); but, I don't think that's the 
main advantage.  The main advantage is that a library can be
updated independently (well...almost [grin]) of the app that
uses it.  In fact, ignoring caching optimizations, one might
even be able to change the behavior of a library reference 
from one use to the next, though that's probably not common.

glen