www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.dwt - DWT as lib or source include?

reply Frank Benoit <keinfarbton googlemail.com> writes:
There are allways questions about the lib and linker problems.

I use for my own development only source include. That is for me OK in 
speed and its the most reliable and easiest way to handle it.

Now i think about removing the default dsss build target to make libs 
and remove it from the installation guide.
The dsss.conf files in dwt-linux/dwt-win/dwt-addons would no more have 
dsss.conf file. Or perhaps just one to test compilation.
And the dsss.conf in dwt-sample just include the sources per relative 
import path ( -I )
What do you think?
Aug 07 2008
next sibling parent reply "Bill Baxter" <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Frank Benoit
<keinfarbton googlemail.com> wrote:
 There are allways questions about the lib and linker problems.

 I use for my own development only source include. That is for me OK in speed
 and its the most reliable and easiest way to handle it.

 Now i think about removing the default dsss build target to make libs and
 remove it from the installation guide.
 The dsss.conf files in dwt-linux/dwt-win/dwt-addons would no more have
 dsss.conf file. Or perhaps just one to test compilation.
 And the dsss.conf in dwt-sample just include the sources per relative import
 path ( -I )
 What do you think?

What's wrong with switching the dsss files to "type=sourcelibrary"? That's what I already do with dwt-addons. --bb
Aug 07 2008
parent Frank Benoit <keinfarbton googlemail.com> writes:
Bill Baxter schrieb:
 On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Frank Benoit
 <keinfarbton googlemail.com> wrote:
 There are allways questions about the lib and linker problems.

 I use for my own development only source include. That is for me OK in speed
 and its the most reliable and easiest way to handle it.

 Now i think about removing the default dsss build target to make libs and
 remove it from the installation guide.
 The dsss.conf files in dwt-linux/dwt-win/dwt-addons would no more have
 dsss.conf file. Or perhaps just one to test compilation.
 And the dsss.conf in dwt-sample just include the sources per relative import
 path ( -I )
 What do you think?

What's wrong with switching the dsss files to "type=sourcelibrary"? That's what I already do with dwt-addons. --bb

it is still one more step that can be forgotten and makes it for me more difficult to give efficient support. There are still problems for ppl building the simples DWT prog. I was more thinking about if build time and executable size makes the use of direct sources unacceptable for users.
Aug 07 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent yidabu <yidabu.spam gmail.com> writes:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:09:34 +0200
Frank Benoit <keinfarbton googlemail.com> wrote:

 Bill Baxter schrieb:
 On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Frank Benoit
 <keinfarbton googlemail.com> wrote:
 There are allways questions about the lib and linker problems.

 I use for my own development only source include. That is for me OK in speed
 and its the most reliable and easiest way to handle it.

 Now i think about removing the default dsss build target to make libs and
 remove it from the installation guide.
 The dsss.conf files in dwt-linux/dwt-win/dwt-addons would no more have
 dsss.conf file. Or perhaps just one to test compilation.
 And the dsss.conf in dwt-sample just include the sources per relative import
 path ( -I )
 What do you think?

What's wrong with switching the dsss files to "type=sourcelibrary"? That's what I already do with dwt-addons. --bb

it is still one more step that can be forgotten and makes it for me more difficult to give efficient support. There are still problems for ppl building the simples DWT prog. I was more thinking about if build time and executable size makes the use of direct sources unacceptable for users.

I always use DWT as lib for the build time. -- yidabu <yidabu.spam gmail.com> http://www.dsource.org/projects/dwin D -(D Chinese): http://www.d-programming-language-china.org/ http://bbs.d-programming-language-china.org/ http://dwin.d-programming-language-china.org/ http://scite4d.d-programming-language-china.org/
Aug 07 2008
prev sibling parent "Bill Baxter" <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:
2008/8/8 yidabu <yidabu.spam gmail.com>:
 On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:09:34 +0200
 Frank Benoit <keinfarbton googlemail.com> wrote:

 Bill Baxter schrieb:
 On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Frank Benoit
 <keinfarbton googlemail.com> wrote:
 There are allways questions about the lib and linker problems.

 I use for my own development only source include. That is for me OK in speed
 and its the most reliable and easiest way to handle it.

 Now i think about removing the default dsss build target to make libs and
 remove it from the installation guide.
 The dsss.conf files in dwt-linux/dwt-win/dwt-addons would no more have
 dsss.conf file. Or perhaps just one to test compilation.
 And the dsss.conf in dwt-sample just include the sources per relative import
 path ( -I )
 What do you think?

What's wrong with switching the dsss files to "type=sourcelibrary"? That's what I already do with dwt-addons. --bb

it is still one more step that can be forgotten and makes it for me more difficult to give efficient support. There are still problems for ppl building the simples DWT prog. I was more thinking about if build time and executable size makes the use of direct sources unacceptable for users.

I always use DWT as lib for the build time.

I like to use the dsss files. Using DSSS means that my app's DSSS build file just works without having to say where to find dwt. More importantly, it means my app's dsss.conf *also* works for my colleagues working on the same code, without each of us having to tweak include paths, and without having to resort to definining lots of environment variables that describe where things are located in our environments. So if you remove the dsss files, I will find it an inconvenience. I don't really care what you decide about making it type=library vs type=sourcelibrary. I'll change it to whatever I feel like myself. I use DWT as a type=library right now, and DWT-addons as type=sourcelibrary. I was under the impression that linking with the DWT lib saved me some compile time on the app, but I can't recall for sure now. --bb
Aug 07 2008