Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cvl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!louie
From: louie@cvl.UUCP (Louis A. Mamakos)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: another argument against shared libraries
Message-ID: <552@cvl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 11-Aug-83 13:06:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: cvl.552
Posted: Thu Aug 11 13:06:45 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 12-Aug-83 04:49:40 EDT
References: sri-arpa.3936, <47@orca.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Md. Computer Vision Lab
Lines: 19

Yes, it is true that if the shared libraries change, then existing programs
will operate differently ('break').  From my experience, this has not been
a problem.  As a part of my work, I do systems hacking on a UNIVAC 1100 series
systems which has shared libraries, and the thing that keeps everything 
working and (most) everyone happy is that the function of a specific shared
library is \clearly/ and \completely/ defined.  When working in a production
environment, you don't just change the defintion of a commonly used library
at a whim.  The advantages of being able to fix a bug, and have ALL programs
which use it get the new and updated copy greatly outweigh any of the other
problems involved.  Of course, this means that you MUST think about the
functions that your library will perform before you rush ahead and implement
it.

			Ready to repel flames,

				Louis Mamakos
				Internet: louie@cvl
				Usenet: ..rlgvax!cvl!louie