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