Re: Static Library Equivalent of a Framework?
Re: Static Library Equivalent of a Framework?
- Subject: Re: Static Library Equivalent of a Framework?
- From: George Warner <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 09:58:57 -0800
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 09:20:13 +0100, Drew McCormack <email@hidden>
wrote:
> If you embed a dynamic framework, I assume it will often result in a
> much bigger app than if you use a static library. Only the executable
> code needed by the app is actually included in the static case, but in
> the dynamic case, you include everything. I would say this is an
> advantage of static linking.
It's not necessary to include everything. You can delete headers, alias,
symlinks, version files, etc. The only overhead absolutely required would be
the folders to make the framework. That's a minor disadvantage compared to
the advantage of being able to update individual dylibs (frameworks) without
having to download the entire application again.
--
Enjoy,
George Warner,
Schizophrenic Optimization Scientists
Apple Developer Technical Support (DTS)
_______________________________________________
xcode-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/xcode-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.