Re: Q: shared libraries

>From: guest@rmy.emory.edu >Subject: Re: Q: shared libraries >Date: 17 Dec 1996 18:29:07 GMT >X-Informix-List-Id: <news.31768> > >In <594g38$b0c@cssun.mathcs.emory.edu> <johnl@informix.com> (Jonathan Leffler) >wrote: >: At the last time I looked (two or three years ago, I think, and well within >: the current decade), SCO Unix did not have the plug-n-play shared libraries >: available with SVR4 systems. Yes, it had shared libraries, but no, >: Informix's code could not be built into SCO shared libraries. It required >: major revamping of the Informix source code to allow it to work with the >: restrictions of the SCO shared libraries. I'm not saying that the >: reworking would not have been a good idea, but the resources were not >: available to do it. >: > > 1. I was talking about shared library in general. And I was not disputing any of what you said about reasons for using shared libraries -- they are all valid. > I don't know you support original argument or my. It seems in your > opinion, support p-n-p shared library is also for saving disk space or > the old SCO(i.e. SCO 3.2 OpenDesktop) non p-n-p shared library was > designed for saving disk space only. p-n-p was probably not the correct term to use. SVR4 makes shared library creation very easy; SVR3 (possibly SVR3.2) had a mkshlib command and a lot of restrictions on what you could do in the code embedded in the shared library, which meant that you could not take most existing code and plug it into a shared library and expect it to 'play', meaning work, the antithesis of play. Oh well:-( I was really only talking about the technical difficulty of producing shared libraries on the SCO platform, stating that it was because it was technically difficult (not past tense) to do, it was not done. That is several years ago. > 2. as a matter of fact, SCO support p-n-p shared library in this decade. > i.e. both SCO 5.x OpenServer(1994) and SCO SVR4(95, i.e. formal UnixWare) > support ELF p-n-p shared library(with is PIC and support all dlxxx() > functions). So creating shared libraries is now as simple on SCO as it is on SVR4. Good. > In English, you still need to use words of "wasn't ..." > and "hadn't ..." even when telling a story of yesterday(as long as it > is no longer true today). I was not correcting the tenses of your English, nor commenting on anyone else's use of tenses in English. > 3. p-n-p has nothing to do with system. It depends on what we mean by 'p-n-p'. I think it does depend on system, though the number of systems without it is diminishing, thank goodness. I don't want to argue this point... > [..Discussion of Ultrix, Linux, SCO, gcc..] >: The situation may have changed -- if someone knows about it, I'm interested >: to know about it. But SCO shared libraries were a pain in the posterior, >: which is why I4GL does not yet supply them. >: >: Yours, >: Jonathan Leffler (johnl@informix.com) #include <disclaimer.h> >: >: PS: Is your login name really guest? And are you really based in the >: rmy.emory.edu domain? If not, kindly fix your mailer or news system to >: inform us who you really are. It isn't as though you are talking rubbish >: and need to be ashamed of yourself, unlike some people who scam this >: newsgroup with completely off-topic articles. > > My login name _is_ 'guest'. However, I am absolutly not based on > rmy.emory.edu. I believe your news server get confused and put its own > domain name on. please check with altavista or dejanews, you will > see the 'From' or 'Sender' fields don't have domain names there. I read c.d.i through an email relay hosted at rmy.emory.edu, which sees no domain name on your addresses and therefore thinks your postings are from its site, and rewrites the From address accordingly. I am not going to switch to a news server or dejanews or anything just to find out who some particular poster is -- I have other things to do with my time. > I don't know how you judge articles to be rubbish or off-topic. I regard the 'how to make money quick' articles as rubbish and vastly off topic. I regarded your posting as 100% on topic. And I said as much, albeit somewhat verbosely. > However, your > attitude and word style explain the reason I avoid put my domain name > there even my posts are purely technic and under the original topic. I was not criticising your posting at all -- indeed, I was saying that in contrast to what some other people post (and I was thinking of the multiple 'make money quick' postings I'd seen), your postings were informative, technically correct, and useful. I'm not clear how my words can be twisted into meaning the contrary, as you seem to think I have done. > If you can point out I'm technicly wrong, I will be very happy to read it > from this group. I've not spotted any technical mistakes in what you have said, so far. > If you want a real technic and friendly private talk, I > can send my email address to you. Yes, please. > But if you just try to throw some of > your frequently used words to my private account, I have to say sorry. I'm not clear what I might be doing to cause you offense! > -g I think it is impolite of you not to say who you are. I don't hide who I am; I don't see why you should. If I had your email address, I would not be posting these questions to the world. However, since you choose to be anonymous, the only way I can address you is in public. I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways. I would have been very happy to take this section of this message offline, but I can't since you haven't said who you are. Yours, Jonathan Leffler (johnl@informix.com) #include <disclaimer.h>