Re: [Chicken-users] Mac OS X static library names

[Raffael Cavallaro]

On May 12, 2007, at 11:36 PM, Brandon Van Every wrote:

> Do Mac OS X users think this is worth doing?


I personally do not think it worth doing. Ideally any application  
that used chicken would distribute the necessary .dylib files with  
the app, either as a framework for user level or system wide  
installation, or as part of the application bundle itself. In either  
case, having this component be a pluggable dynamic library would  
allow kinds of of application updates - those where chicken itself or  
some egg the app used was updated - by simply replacing this  
framework or library rather than replacing the whole application.  
This of course becomes even more convenient if there are several  
applications that use the chicken framework or library.

Basically it comes down to the fact that modern Mac OS X applications  
are really directories with lots of components in them, not  
monolithic files. This being the case it makes more sense to use  
dynamic linking. At a higher level (politically speaking) I've found  
over the years that doing things that are deprecated by Apple is a  
good way to get burned down the road.



regards,

Ralph




Raffael Cavallaro, Ph.D.
address@hidden