for clfw
* library will be libclfw++.so, etc. (commited configure.in)
* check-in ClfwCommon.hpp to /clfw/clfw
* check-in LibraryLoad.hpp to /clfw/LibLoad
What do you guys think is the better route to go:
1. for clfw, the major output would be one (1) library : libclfw++. I
could set the makefiles up to include objects from all the abstracts
(e.g. LibLoad, Persist). The advantage being that the developer need not
worry about potentially large library includes and synchronization of
more than one release.
--or--
2. Have multiple library output (which could get very busy), for
example:
libclfw++ (base stuff)
libclfwll++ (Library Load)
libclfwp++ (Persist)
etc.
this has the advantage of reducing the memory footprint if only
extending one, or a few, abstractions at the expense of maintenance and
version requirement correctness for co-dependent framework abstractions.
My view:
Although I started all the segregation talk, I would now postulate:
1. Most development extensions would use more than one abstract
framework anyway
2. As a developer, I find it annoying to have to synchronize many
different releases
Thoughts?
--
Frank V. Castellucci
http://corelinux.sourceforge.net
OOA/OOD/C++ Standards and Guidelines for Linux
http://PythPat.sourceforge.net
Pythons Pattern Package
|
