llmozlib was: [sldev] Windlight 74642 sources?

[Mike Monkowski]

I can verify that the RC 1.18.6.0 library bundle does include llmozlib. 
  The 1.18.5.3 Windows library bundle contains an out of date VS2005 
version of llmozlib (llmozlib_vc80.lib, both lib_release and lib_debug 
vesions) so I used the one in the RC 1.18.6.0 bundle and it works fine.

A dynamic llmozlib may have benefits, but this is an example where the 
version could not have been upgraded separately from the viewer, since 
new function calls were added.  Having it statically linked means you 
find the problems at build time rather than at run time and you can 
always be sure that your customer is using the right version.

Mike


Robin Cornelius wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2007 11:28 PM, Alissa Sabre <alissa_sabre at yahoo.co.jp> wrote:
> 
>>>With respect to llmozlib, that's a separate download.  It has changed
>>>fairly recently (2007-11-21),
>>
>>What?  Let me make sure the point.
>>
>>Are you saying that you have changed the way you distribute the
>>llmozlib binary?  Does it mean the future prebuilt third-party library
>>bundle to be released after 2007-11-21 doesn not include llmozlib
>>binary and open source developer need to download it separately?
>>
>># I'm not criticising.  I'm just asking...
> 
> 
> (i think) That was just referring to the llmozlib source, llmozlib in
> linden builds is hard welded to the binary, plus has all the xpcom/xul
> baggage. I think i am still the only one shipping a dynamic library
> version of llmozlib without baggage and i really hope this is the way
> things can end up.
> 
> Tofu seemed to suggest world domination plans for llmozlib so
> hopefully this will become a true separate project at ubrowser.com and
> i presume they will just ship a compiled llmozlib as they do for all
> existing libraries now but one could if they so wished go to ubrowser
> and compile it themselves.
> 
> In fact hijacking the thread completely. Would it be worth :-
> 
> 1) creating a dynamic llmozlib regardless of if in needs its own
> xpcom/xul or uses xul runner
> This would allow versions to be upgraded seperatly to the viewer. As
> logged on JIRA already this I have done both with xulrunner and with
> my own xpcom/xul baggage.
> 
> 2) Can we runtime detect llmozlib instead of linking and change ALL of
> the #ifdef LL_LIBXUL_ENABLED to a runtime flag that is set TRUE is
> llmozlib.so/dll is detected??
> 
> Robin
> _______________________________________________
> Click here to unsubscribe or manage your list subscription:
> /index.html
>