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 08:56:20

EDIT: I apologise, Robert said nothing about starting a thread as a result
of the initialisation of a global.

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:50 AM, Christian Schladetsch <
christian.schladetsch_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
> 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.
>
>
>