Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search

[REBOL] Re: DLL Hell = Rebol library script version

From: nitsch-lists:netcologne at: 11-Nov-2003 0:32

Am Montag, 10. November 2003 21:28 schrieb Andrew Martin:
> Thanks, Anton! > > You wrote: > > > (A) f2 just tries to use whatever version of f1 is currently > > installed. > > I'd go for this option as it's the most simple option, in breaking as > soon as possible. The other options involve the higher level function > "knowing" too much about the lower level function. > > The scenarios remind me of Windows "DLL Hell" and the solution that MS > came up for it for .NET. That solution was basically to not use DLLs. :) > Instead, supply all the software (including DLLs) for an application > with the application's main .exe. Those DLLs supplied with the > application are the ones used by the application. Only if DLLs have the > same version are they shared, IIRC. > > We can use a similar principle. When distributing a Rebol script, > include all the functions (words) that the main script requires. Of > course, the problem here is that most of us have nice toolkits of > functions that we want to use in our main script applications, and it's > pointless manually copying and pasting from our toolkit because that > just produces multiple copies, with no definitive, authoritive source. > So the solution to me, is for the release version of the > script/application to have the library/toolkit functions the script > requires, automatically inserted into the script just after the Rebol > header. That way, the script application will create it's preferred > environment, regardless of previously launched library programs. >
I agree. Best way. Ways for inserting are: 1) a script-merger as you suggest. The official one is %prebol.r 2) The main-script as archive, unpack in subdirectory and run.
> Of course, there can be a problem with what to do, when current and past > Rebol interpreters have faults and need patching. Perhaps we should prod > Rebol HQ into action? :) It would be nice to have defects fixed, and old > versions of Rebol interpreters removed. >
Primarily RT's job IMHO. But a library of patches would be smaller than The Great Library Of Everything. So may be manageable. But the patches could be placed in the app too. A developer gets the patches, integrates them in the app, releases update. Also one can insist on a special rebol-version. thats what one does anyway with sdk. so patching can be more specific. (Java does this now)
> What do you think about it? Is there something I've missed? > > Andrew J Martin