I have no objection to a separate wrapper library if, and only if:

1. The wrappers come in the standard binary distributions for Linux, Windows, and OS X.

2. No additional configuration (on top of installing and/or building Csound) is required by user to load and use the wrappers.

But then, if these conditions are satisfied, why not just put the wrappers into the standard library and allow the build system to deselect them for platforms or installations where they are a problem?

Regards,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Istvan Varga 
Sent: Oct 13, 2005 1:10 PM
To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [Csnd] Common Music and Csound 5

Anthony Kozar wrote:

>>This is so that users of Csound will be presented with a consistent, easy to
>>use toolkit and people will not make false assumptions about what is and what
>>is not possible with Csound.
> 
> I can certainly imagine a similar situation happening if some of the more
> "popular" ways to obtain a binary libcsound release do not include
> functionality such as the Python wrapper, but many people are trying to
> install some nice new Python GUI over top of the library.
> 
> But, as a developer, I previously stated as well that I would like the
> wrappers to be optional.  *shrug*

So, by keeping the wrappers in a separate library, there is no confusion
about the main library containing them or not, yet it is possible to build
a version of libcsound that is smaller, more portable, and has less
dependencies.
-- 
Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk

Michael Gogins wrote:

> I have no objection to a separate wrapper library if, and only if:
> 
> 1. The wrappers come in the standard binary distributions
 > for Linux, Windows, and OS X.

Of course, a binary distribution would come with the wrappers,
regardless of whether they are a separate library or are statically
compiled into libcsound, as long as whoever makes the distribution
can actually build them. If having wrappers in the main library
becomes a hard requirement then a distribution that cannot provide
them is most likely to be discontinued (that includes my Win32
releases, by the way) for not being able to build it at all.
On the other hand, assuming that one can indeed build the wrappers,
then if they are a separate dynamic library, there is no reason not
to include them; with a single monolithic library that includes
everything, but wrappers are optional, it may be tempting to omit
them to make the library smaller and have fewer dependencies.

> 2. No additional configuration (on top of installing and/or building
 > Csound) is required by user to load and use the wrappers.

I am not sure what this exactly means, but is having a csound.dll
file and a csound_wrappers.dll (the name is only an example) that
links against it acceptable ?