Goal: Increased Modularity?

[Les Mikesell]

Bill Nottingham wrote:

>>> I was discussing a case where instead of linking against libvorbis, you
>>> dlopen() it - that's the sort of thing which is really much better to
>>> catch at buildtime. If you're dlopening the plugin that is itself linked
>>> against libvorbis (or whatever), that's better.
>> Won't anything using a shared library break if you replace that library 
>> with one that does not follow the same interface definition whether it's 
>> dlopen()ed or not?  That's kind of the whole concept of interfaces - they 
>> aren't supposed to change.  If you write a new one, call it something else.
> 
> Sure. But DT_NEEDED is tracked at the package level and can be
> easily caught.

Back to the beginning with this argument: if you are only planning to 
dlopen() libvorbis in the presence of ogg files there's no particular 
reason to expect it to be necessary at all, let alone a particular 
version of it.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com