No registered users in community xowiki
in last 10 minutes
in last 10 minutes
Re: [Xotcl] ANN: ActiveTcl 8.4.14.0 and 8.5.0.0b6 now available
From: Scott Gargash <scottg_at_atc.creative.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:47:01 -0700
Jeff Hobbs <jeffh_at_activestate.com> wrote on 12/11/2006 04:32:55 PM:
> Scott Gargash wrote:
> > Is there any way to get the xotcl c-interface files (the .h/.lib files)
> > that correspond to the version of XOTcl that ships with the ActiveState
> > release? They're not present in the distribution.
>
> Hmmm, well, we don't keep those around. With the number of binary
> extensions in ActiveTcl, we made a decision a few years ago to save
> space by not keeping around the dev bits. I understand that they would
> be useful to a small percentage of users, but we haven't figured out any
> way to easily automate the handling of dev bits separate from user bits.
Perhaps it would make sense to break the download into two parts, a runtime environment and an SDK.
I'm unsure what other extensions have a binary interface, but for XOTcl (at least) all that needs to
be shipped is a couple of headers and the stubs lib. It seems equivalent to Tcl proper. In fact,
perhaps even the base Tcl libs/headers ought to be in an SDK package. I'd think than many, perhaps
even a majority of, users don't need the Tcl headers & libs.
But if it's not there, it's not there. Oh well, back to building my own version.
Scott
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:47:01 -0700
Jeff Hobbs <jeffh_at_activestate.com> wrote on 12/11/2006 04:32:55 PM:
> Scott Gargash wrote:
> > Is there any way to get the xotcl c-interface files (the .h/.lib files)
> > that correspond to the version of XOTcl that ships with the ActiveState
> > release? They're not present in the distribution.
>
> Hmmm, well, we don't keep those around. With the number of binary
> extensions in ActiveTcl, we made a decision a few years ago to save
> space by not keeping around the dev bits. I understand that they would
> be useful to a small percentage of users, but we haven't figured out any
> way to easily automate the handling of dev bits separate from user bits.
Perhaps it would make sense to break the download into two parts, a runtime environment and an SDK.
I'm unsure what other extensions have a binary interface, but for XOTcl (at least) all that needs to
be shipped is a couple of headers and the stubs lib. It seems equivalent to Tcl proper. In fact,
perhaps even the base Tcl libs/headers ought to be in an SDK package. I'd think than many, perhaps
even a majority of, users don't need the Tcl headers & libs.
But if it's not there, it's not there. Oh well, back to building my own version.
Scott