On Sat, 2006-09-30 at 10:09 -0700, Anthony Minessale wrote:
There are a few good explanations (I hope).
[ Good explanations skiped ] Ok. Well, in that case let me ask you this -- why do you still want to keep this libraries as separate entities? From what you've told me it seems that the best way for achiving your goals would be to simply fold *all* of them into lib subdirectory and just start treating them as parts of FreeSwitch and not aliens. That would not only eliminate the need for 'wget' during the build process and also the need for endless separate ./configure ; make ; make install sequences but will make it *much* easier to optimize FreeSwitch at a compiler level.
I am fairly concerned with making huge initiatives in the build process during a time where I am still coding 12 hours a day on the core but I am open to improvement as long as the tangent does not impeed my development effort. Imagine if someone wanted to install superior scafolding while the guy is on top of it building the house still. Once development shifts to higher level stuff my concerns will most likely subside.
Fair enough. But for performance tweaks this stuff matters. Now, I would've completely understood the boundaries for my tweaks had you have systems dependencies in mind. But from what you've told me it looks like you really wouldn't mind privatizing all of these libraries, would you ?
I am truely anxious to see what happens on this super sun box and I'd like to thank you for your efforts and your valuable time I really appriciate your help.
Thanks and I'll try to be helpful ;-) Thanks, Roman. P.S. <compiler engineer hat on> Now let me tell you -- DSOs used for dynamic *linking* are BAAAAD (but don't confuse them with DSOs used for dynamic loading -- these are ok). So if there's any hope to get rid of them that would help FreeSwitch on a couple of different levels starting from stability and all the way up to performance. </ompiler engineer hat off>