Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>What I'm
>thinking of specifically could be used to yank the functions out of the
>base perl binary (which is sort of where it started) but doesn't actually
>have to be used that way on any particular platform. (Or, rather, probably
>will, but just reference a chunk of code already loaded in)
Is this thing working? I've been making suggestions regarding this for about
a month now. I actually started an RFC on it, but never heard a word back
about it.
It really can have a 'dual' functionality. Static Build or DSO. Potentially,
there can even been a combination version (see my email of 8/28/00), with
some libraries static, and others DSO. This would allow a core functionality
required by the installation, while still allow the extended functionality
needed to run applications not originally expected in the installation. In
my estimation, it could possibly allow for better system tuning, and
potentially allow for higher security in sensitive areas (i.e.,
'uncertified' libraries could be left off the list based upon a
'<directory>' directive in the configuration?).
If the designers of Perl wish to make it a successful 'platform independent'
language, then it really needs to be as flexible as possible. This means the
ability to allow the implementor to decide what's the right way in their
particular instance, and although that may not be the 'recommended' way,
then who are we to tell them that they are wrong. I started as an embedded
systems developer for the 8051, and I know full well what sorts of
limitations a system like that has. And don't kid yourselves, there are
still alot of those systems still chugging away.
Grant M.
