|
From: Frank V. C. <fr...@co...> - 2000-08-27 12:32:56
|
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 |