Fri Feb 18 15:29:11 CET 2005
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 01:38:33PM +0100, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Armstrong (AL/EAB)" <joe.armstrong@REDACTED>
> > The whole point of having a stand-alone thing is that you distribute ONE file
> Oh, and there's another issue: how would you distribute drivers inside the same
> executable? Well, yes, the code can be packed as any other resource, but in
> order to make it loadable and runnable, I think most OSs would want it in a .dll
> or .so file. So you'll have to create some temporary files anyway.
Both the points you make aren't new: I specifically mentioned them in
my original analysis of Tclkit. There are also obvious, though not
universally-acceptable answers[*] for them, but I get the sense that
this thread is straying from how-to-do-it to why-do-it, and that the
SFE-is-a-horrible-idea camp is somewhat more vocal. 8-)
As a newcomer to Erlang, I suspect my ability to add real value to this
thread is almost at an end, though if anyone wishes to continue discussing
how an good solid Erlang SFE model might work, I can contribute my
experience from the Tclkit angle, both technical and end-user, as well
as a fresh view on things.
Those who are interested in a deeper understanding of the Tclkit model
can start reading <http://www.equi4.com/218> from the "Tclkit's Anatomy"
section onwards and drill down from the "Anatomy of a starkit" link.
[*] i.e. "size is hardly a major issue in most deployment environments"
and "every single-file executable solution in existence has already
solved the lack-of-OS-support-for-embedded-DLLs issue, we're not
treading new ground here"
More information about the erlang-questions