Re: Static Library Equivalent of a Framework?
Re: Static Library Equivalent of a Framework?
- Subject: Re: Static Library Equivalent of a Framework?
- From: Drew McCormack <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 23:08:44 +0100
On Nov 17, 2003, at 6:58 PM, George Warner wrote:
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.
My understanding is that when you link statically, only the parts the
library actually called by the application are included. If the library
is big, and you only call a small part of it,
in the static case, it doesn't matter. But if you use a dynamic
library, you have to include all of the library code whether you use it
or not.
Drew
_______________________________________________
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.