[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: requiring modules with a C and Lua part
- From: Terry Bayne <tbayne@...>
- Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 20:20:23 -0500
I've had some thoughts of my own on this... the embedding of lua code within the binary file; but I don't want to lose the advantage of being able to modify LUA code "on the fly". To that end I have toyed with the idea of:
1. Creating a "bundled" executable, that contains embedded LUA code.
2. Add options to the executable to "extract" the code to real files.
3. Add option to the executable to "re-embed" the lua code if changes are made.
Just the beginnings of an idea - it simplifies distribution, but allows inspection/modification of the LUA code.
One down side is that it wouldn't likely be all that portable across platforms....
Any thoughts on this approach?
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 07:30:42PM -0200, Reuben Thomas wrote:
>> I'd rather not embed the Lua code: it makes development and
>> inspection harder. It's a pity to obfuscate what you don't have
> It does the opposite, too, though: it introduces new error cases
> (or makes existing ones more likely), like mismatched binaries and
> code, and having to locate code on disk. If the Lua code is
> embedded in the binary, then a lot of that goes away--things can
> still be built incorrectly, but installation errors are reduced.
> (For development, it's good to have both available. I don't want
> to rebuild a binary to change Lua code.)