Registering DLL's
Alexandre Julliard
julliard at winehq.com
Thu Jan 9 11:06:25 CST 2003
"John K. Hohm" <jhohm at acm.org> writes:
> The main reason I used a static list was to make it impossible to forget to
> unregister one of the interfaces you registered; that is why the unregister
> functions take the entire structures (but only need the first members).
>
> OTOH, if we might someday want to avoid unregistering one or more interfaces
> or classes we registered, having separate functions would make that easier.
>
> I think I still prefer the structures, but are you convinced enough?
Not really, but I don't feel strongly about it, so do it the way you
like.
> What would it take to make a static library work for this? Unlike a dll,
> that would not have any overhead, would it? I'm a real sucker for elegance,
> you know. :-)
It's possible, but it adds quite a bit of complexity to the build
process, and creates annoying dll dependencies. I'd prefer that we
start with the duplication for now, and see how ugly it gets.
--
Alexandre Julliard
julliard at winehq.com
More information about the wine-devel
mailing list