[V4RB] Macho VComponents folder is 22mb???

[Shaun Wexler]

On Aug 24, 2006, at 3:57 PM, Ruslan Zasukhin wrote:

> On 8/25/06 1:33 AM, "Shaun Wexler" <dev at macfoh.com> wrote:
>
>> The logical step is to have one universal "Valentina.framework"  
>> stored
>> in /Library/Frameworks, to which all app's can link.
>
> How this differ from /usr/local/VComponents ?

/Library/Frameworks is the proper location, as defined by Apple.  The  
VX project bulids the all-in-one Valentina.framework to be much  
smaller than the combined dylibs of VComponents, and it is faster and  
more efficient in operation, due to the lack of dyld stubs and  
associated overhead, not to mention C++ code duplication, etc.  The  
total framework which encompases VShared+VKernel+ICU is only 21 MB as  
a Universal binary for Tiger.

>> I can write some code for applications to download/embed/install  
>> their
>> minimum version of Valentina.framework, and install a newer version
>> into the system if necessary.
>
> Sounds interesting. But not all developers/apps can rely on online
> connection.

Exactly, which this fulfills by allowing the installer for Valentina  
to be embedded within the app.  The developer can choose to offer a  
downloadable app version which contains a "lite" plugin that will use  
the existing Valentina installation in /Library/Frameworks, and/or can  
download a newer version from the internet (if no embedded copy is  
included in its plug-in package).  Simple; some of my other apps use  
the same technique.

> What scary me in this design: is versions of frameworks or dlls.
>
> Yes I know that frameworks can contain few versions.
> But then we again go in trap of big size?

NO!  Smaller, because lack of individual dylibs and stubs, etc, and it  
places all resources in a well-known location and they are loadable  
using standard bundle API's.

> Valentina is in active development, we produce versions not so often  
> like
> this was in 1.x but still quite often.
>
> * For example, how you image shipping of 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 in such  
> design?
>
> * How will co-exist on the same computer 2 apps:
>     one made with V4RB 2.4
>     another with V4REV 2.4.2   ?

When you reach a point of version incompatibility, then the framework  
version in bumped from "A" to "B", etc, and a framework can itself  
contain multiple versions within the same bundle if necessary.  This  
allows backwards compatibility for older app's, because they are built  
against a certain framework version, even though the framework path  
points to the bundle wrapper directory... that's why frameworks exist,  
for this reason.

> Apple's OS X 10.4 was about 10Gb on HDD if I not mistake.

Panther is 1.5 GB - 2.3 GB.
Tiger is only 2 GB, up to 6 GB with developer tools and no extra  
printer drivers or localizations.
Leopard is proportionately larger, but NDA precludes... although I can  
say yes, libraries, frameworks and app's are built fat with 4 arch's  
each.

> 10.5 as we see, is going to be 4 times bigger? Because each dll and  
> each
> framework should go in ppc32, ppc64, x8632, x8664 ?

To compare, on Leopard, Calculator.app is 1,138,370 bytes on disk.

> I wonder if 10.4 is shipped already on few DVDs? :-)
>
> All this sizes somehow sounds shocking ...

Yes.  Don't ask me about how Leopard performs [currently] either; you  
might not like the answer...  ;)

-- 
Shaun Wexler
MacFOH
http://www.macfoh.com