4 ms·

Oh boy SxS. So now you have seperate DLLs for every application. How about just linking it in statically and make the applications standalone?

by DeepDuh 14y ago

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
cooldeal 14y ago
Sigh, sneering and snark and also downvotes on my GP comment. That's HN I guess. Must.. resist.. temptation.. to be snarky myself. Anyway back to the point... >Oh boy SxS. So now you have seperate DLLs for every application. No, only if the application uses a different version that explicitly is marked as NOT being compatible. If the version used is the same, you do not have separate DLLs for every application. >How about just linking it in statically and make the applications standalone? That will needlessly bloat up the application. Assume 10 applications need library X version 2.3 and one application needs 2.2. With SxS, you will have one 2.3 DLL and one 2.2 DLL. If you link it statically, the same code will be duplicated in 10 EXEs. Multiply this by all applications and DLLs used across applications.Not to mention waiting fot 10 apps to update to fix a security bug. You think that's good?
- DeepDuh 14y ago
  I can see the benefits in terms of security but not in terms of space. So what if the application folder uses half a gig more, if I never have to use installers for most applications. And as far as your example goes: From what I understand most Windows developers just use a fixed library version number to specify what dll to use. When that happens, security updates won't do any good either. IMO as long as APIs can be changed in between library versions, developers will always be responsible themselves to upgrade to the newest libraries. It's a nice idea but it just doesn't reflect the reality in the world of Business application where incompatibility directly result in monetary losses.
  - option_greek 14y ago
    "So what if the application folder uses half a gig more, if I never have to use installers for most applications." Sure, but a gig more for RAM would make a lot of difference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic-link_library#Memory_management http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic-link_library#Memory_man...
  - cooldeal 14y ago
    It looks like you don't know how manifests and SxS works. You can mark the DLL compatible while bumping the version number for security upgrades. The comments in this thread(from my OP) is a good start if you want to learn. http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3079259&cid=41164967 http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3079259&cid=41...

Oh boy SxS. So now you have seperate DLLs for every application. How about just linking it in statically and make the applications standalone?

by DeepDuh 14y ago

Oh boy SxS. So now you have seperate DLLs for every application. How about just linking it in statically and make the applications standalone?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

cooldeal 14y ago

Sigh, sneering and snark and also downvotes on my GP comment. That's HN I guess. Must.. resist.. temptation.. to be snarky myself. Anyway back to the point... >Oh boy SxS. So now you have seperate DLLs for every application. No, only if the application uses a different version that explicitly is marked as NOT being compatible. If the version used is the same, you do not have separate DLLs for every application. >How about just linking it in statically and make the applications standalone? That will needlessly bloat up the application. Assume 10 applications need library X version 2.3 and one application needs 2.2. With SxS, you will have one 2.3 DLL and one 2.2 DLL. If you link it statically, the same code will be duplicated in 10 EXEs. Multiply this by all applications and DLLs used across applications.Not to mention waiting fot 10 apps to update to fix a security bug. You think that's good?

DeepDuh 14y ago
I can see the benefits in terms of security but not in terms of space. So what if the application folder uses half a gig more, if I never have to use installers for most applications. And as far as your example goes: From what I understand most Windows developers just use a fixed library version number to specify what dll to use. When that happens, security updates won't do any good either. IMO as long as APIs can be changed in between library versions, developers will always be responsible themselves to upgrade to the newest libraries. It's a nice idea but it just doesn't reflect the reality in the world of Business application where incompatibility directly result in monetary losses.
- option_greek 14y ago
  "So what if the application folder uses half a gig more, if I never have to use installers for most applications." Sure, but a gig more for RAM would make a lot of difference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic-link_library#Memory_management http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic-link_library#Memory_man...
- cooldeal 14y ago
  It looks like you don't know how manifests and SxS works. You can mark the DLL compatible while bumping the version number for security upgrades. The comments in this thread(from my OP) is a good start if you want to learn. http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3079259&cid=41164967 http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3079259&cid=41...