[gdal-dev] RFC 96 adjustment: Re: Call for review and discussion on RFC96: Deferred in-tree C++ plugin loading

[Even Rouault]

Hi,

I just wanted to point that a shortcoming of RFC 96 
(https://gdal.org/development/rfc/rfc96_deferred_plugin_loading.html) 
was discovered. https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/pull/10068 will address 
it. Please refer to it for the details.

This PR is aimed at being backported for 3.9.1. Pedantically this will 
be an ABI change (between in-tree drivers built as plugins and core), 
although I suspect that it shouldn't be noticed for most 
use&distribution scenarios. Not clear if that's worth a SONAME bump for 
3.9.1, or if that would be more an annoyance.

Even

Le 02/11/2023 à 12:59, Even Rouault via gdal-dev a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I'm seeking for feedback and review on a new RFC (RFC 96: Deferred 
> in-tree C++ plugin loading),
> detailed in https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/pull/8648, whose summary is:
>
> This RFC adds a mechanism to defer the loading of in-tree C++ plugin 
> drivers to
> the point where their executable code is actually needed, and converts 
> a number
> of relevant drivers to use that mechanism. The aim is to allow for 
> more modular
> GDAL builds, while improving the performance of plugin loading.
>
> (This is material only for GDAL 3.9 of course)
>
> Even
>
-- 
http://www.spatialys.com
My software is free, but my time generally not.