Re: [boost] Any interest in static plugins?

Subject: Re: [boost] Any interest in static plugins?
From: Christian Schladetsch (christian.schladetsch_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-30 08:50:19

Dissenting points from my preceding post are commented on:

Rob Stewart wrote:
>

Depending upon platform, the use of a dynamically linked library (DLL or
> shared object) may give desirable results, whereas the use of statically
> linked libraries will not.
>

Not only depending on platform, but also depending on the order of the
linking of compilation units within a given DLL or other library; which is
not deterministic.

[snip]

> The second issue is global scope pollution. Systems based on
> > pre-main()
> > initialisation are necessarily polluting the global namespace
> > (you can hide
> > the variables in a namespace, but they are still global). As
>
> That is nonsensical.  How can a name in a namespace pollute the global
> namespace?  Perhaps you're trying to say that such variables contribute to
> the global system state.
>

Either or both my and the general terminology is lacking here. I don't know
what the convention is for this, but to clarify: when I say 'global' I mean
'globally accessible, given matching declaration'. A variable in namespace *
foo* can still be globally accessible, and remains traumatic when used in
threaded applications.

> In the OP's environment, such statics may well be initialized before
> main() runs, thus avoiding threading problems.
>
>
How could such a reprehensible act of creating a thread before main() runs
avoid problems?

Regards,
Christian.