|List:||Internals||« Previous MessageNext Message »|
|From:||Michael Widenius||Date:||September 28 2008 10:22pm|
|Subject:||Re: why isn't libmysqld dynamically linked, was Re: why isn't mysqle|
a shared library?
|View as plain text|
Hi! >>>>> "Ian" == Ian Monroe <ian@stripped> writes: <cut> Ian> Well thats all well and good, but lets remember the cost of static Ian> libraries in terms of maintenance, not being able to share read-only Ian> memory between processes and being much harder to update MySQL. Like Ian> I'm guessing everytime a Linux distro updates MySQL they will want to Ian> 'update' Amarok, or else there would be a mismatch between the MySQL Ian> built into Amarok and the data files it uses (though I'm not sure how Ian> likely a problem this actually is). For maintenence purposes static libraries are less error prone; In other words, if you use static libraries in your application your are not depending on what version of the libraries the user has installed on his machine. For mysql the data files are not a problem; Any newer version of MySQL can normally read any old version of the data tables. The biggest benefits of shared libraries are less disk space and less overall memory footprint if a lot of running applications use the same libraries. Ian> And just the practical matter that the way Amarok is designed with our Ian> collections as plugins we don't have much choice anyways without some Ian> cost in development time. Ian> Also unlike Chandra we're not trying to capture every CPU cycle Ian> analyzing huge databases; the average size of an Amarok database is Ian> probably 10-20 megabytes. :) Regards, Monty