On Wednesday 08 of February 2012, Michael Stahl wrote: > On 08/02/12 18:10, Tor Lillqvist wrote: > > Is there any fundamental problem in just shoving all the objects in > > framework into one library (for instance the "fwk" one, or one renamed > > to the perhaps more logical name "framework")?
Not perhaps, certainly :). > AFAIK this module caused huge problems when gbuild-ifying on Windows > (specifically because of the weird DLLPUBLIC things going on there), so > in any case please test if it works on Windows before pushing such a > change. > > > My guess is that the framework code might originally have gone into > > just one shared library, anybody know the reason why it was split up > > into five separate ones? > > hmm... no idea, perhaps mba remembers the rationale? > > oh, one thing: probably some libs are required at startup and others > not; so merging all in one brings a startup performance penalty (but > even then 2 libs should be enough?) I don't think there would be a noticeable penalty if the libraries were merged into one. They all link the same libraries according to ldd (except for some intra-dependencies), and they all together are less than 5M, so probably reading it all in one go may be in fact more efficient. But I cannot find something that would actually link libfwk [*], which is 3M, so at least merging the other 4 definitely makes sense even from performance point of view. I can't comment on other reasons why this might have been split though. [*] Seriously, I can't find a thing. Is there actually something using the library? -- Lubos Lunak [email protected] _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
