> As some may remember, MESS was exactly like that and it caused all sorts of issues.
> When it was merged into one executable, those problems went away. So, Bryan, despite
> all the effort you've obviously put into this, I kinda doubt it would be accepted
> (once bitten, twice shy sort of thing). My personal view is that I don't care how the
> internals are put together as long as it works.
I am sort of interested. What sort of issues? As I dont really follow MESS too closely.
I have usually found a good clean interface does pretty good things (I have also seen it abused). Sounds like in this case even if .lib/.dll doesnt happen he may have found a way to make a nice abstraction that helps? The speedup that was talked about and the ability to port easier.
Pulling it out into a .lib/.dll I have found over the years doesnt really help *UNLESS* the code is really shared between executables. It doesnt gain you much. But underneath the abstraction usually does help. Even if you dont really do the abstraction physically.
There can be reasons to do an external .dll/.lib but I am not sure that would help in this case. As mostly MAME/MAMEUI/others are distributed as 1 .exe each. Typically people run one at a time. The ability to switch out the 'heart' of the program is not really useful just due to the way things are distributed.
If it were me I would leave the .lib/.dll idea alone and concentrate more on the proper abstraction in the code.
I would be semi interested in the thinking behind cleaving it into two parts. Maybe I am seeing it wrong?
|
Index 
Flat 
Re: libmame patch discussion please
Reply
