Hi,
I just wanted to point that a shortcoming of RFC 96
(https://gdal.org/development/rfc/rfc96_deferred_plugin_loading.html)
was discovered. https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/pull/10068 will address
it. Please refer to it for the details.
This PR is aimed at being backported for 3.9.1. Pedantically this will
be an ABI change (between in-tree drivers built as plugins and core),
although I suspect that it shouldn't be noticed for most
use&distribution scenarios. Not clear if that's worth a SONAME bump for
3.9.1, or if that would be more an annoyance.
Even
Le 02/11/2023 à 12:59, Even Rouault via gdal-dev a écrit :
Hi,
I'm seeking for feedback and review on a new RFC (RFC 96: Deferred
in-tree C++ plugin loading),
detailed in https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/pull/8648, whose summary is:
This RFC adds a mechanism to defer the loading of in-tree C++ plugin
drivers to
the point where their executable code is actually needed, and converts
a number
of relevant drivers to use that mechanism. The aim is to allow for
more modular
GDAL builds, while improving the performance of plugin loading.
(This is material only for GDAL 3.9 of course)
Even
--
http://www.spatialys.com
My software is free, but my time generally not.
_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
