Hi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Macieira, Thiago
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 4:17 PM
> To: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; Lankswert, Patrick
> Subject: Re: [dev] Library names for IoTivity
> 
> On Tuesday 24 February 2015 12:58:12 Jon A. Cruz wrote:
> > This seems to me that a separation between C and C++ parts of the core
> > might be warranted. For the single-threaded case that would mean not
> > building the C++ lib.
> >
> > The current proposal of a single library would presumably address this
> > by merely selectively disabling inclusion of the C++ code by build
> > configuration wizardry.
> >
> > Making the C and C++ parts into two libraries would simply build
> > configuration and maintenance. However our codebase is probably small
> > enough not to require this complexity yet. Then later we could split
> > into two libs and perhaps a compatibility lib that keeps the original
> > name but references both of the new ones.
> 
> Another advantage is to ensure we don't have any leakage of C++ code into
> the C SDK, if we do the split.
> 
> A disadvantage of the split is the overhead caused by having mutliple
> libraries. There's at a minimum 4k overhead of non-sharable data and the
> symbol resolution is O(n) on the number of libraries.
> 
> I did mention this to Pat and he, as the maintainer of this particular
codebase,
> said he prefers a single, merged library.
> 
> Pat, do you want to change your mind?

I do not think so, I think that on a given platform (say linux system) there
is little benefit to splitting the shared library and a cost to coordinating
two libraries. Even as a static library, multiple libraries seem to add
unneeded complexity.

On platforms, like Arduino, the C++ code will simply not be included in the
static libraries.

Pat
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 7198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 
<http://lists.iotivity.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/attachments/20150225/86e97f40/attachment.p7s>

Reply via email to