Shared libraries

[Neil Rickert]

In article <kre.673335935 at mundamutti.cs.mu.OZ.AU> kre at cs.mu.oz.au (Robert Elz) writes:
>and even more importantly, the ability to make changes to library
>routines that affect all processes to use the library after the change,
>without recompilation or re linking (other than normal shared library
>runtime linking).

 You have just listed as a benefit of shared libraries that feature which
can cause perfectly good working programs to suddenly be broken just because
someone changed the shared libraries.  I consider that to be a major
disadvantage of shared libraries.

 On the other hand, I understand your point.  It allows you to take old code
using the hosts tables, and have it suddenly use the nameserver, for example.
But a module structure which allowed re-editing a binary, and explicitely
replacing one module in it, would give a much more useful level of control.

-- 
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
  Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science               <rickert at cs.niu.edu>
  Northern Illinois Univ.
  DeKalb, IL 60115                                   +1-815-753-6940