📄 dso.html.en
字号:
reside in a system directory (usually <code>/usr/lib</code>) and the link to the executable program is established at build-time by specifying <code>-lfoo</code> to the linker command. This hard-codes library references into the executable program file so that at start-time the Unix loader is able to locate <code>libfoo.so</code> in <code>/usr/lib</code>, in paths hard-coded via linker-options like <code>-R</code> or in paths configured via the environment variable <code>LD_LIBRARY_PATH</code>. It then resolves any (yet unresolved) symbols in the executable program which are available in the DSO.</p> <p>Symbols in the executable program are usually not referenced by the DSO (because it's a reusable library of general code) and hence no further resolving has to be done. The executable program has no need to do anything on its own to use the symbols from the DSO because the complete resolving is done by the Unix loader. (In fact, the code to invoke <code>ld.so</code> is part of the run-time startup code which is linked into every executable program which has been bound non-static). The advantage of dynamic loading of common library code is obvious: the library code needs to be stored only once, in a system library like <code>libc.so</code>, saving disk space for every program.</p> <p>In the second way the DSO's are usually called <em>shared objects</em> or <em>DSO files</em> and can be named with an arbitrary extension (although the canonical name is <code>foo.so</code>). These files usually stay inside a program-specific directory and there is no automatically established link to the executable program where they are used. Instead the executable program manually loads the DSO at run-time into its address space via <code>dlopen()</code>. At this time no resolving of symbols from the DSO for the executable program is done. But instead the Unix loader automatically resolves any (yet unresolved) symbols in the DSO from the set of symbols exported by the executable program and its already loaded DSO libraries (especially all symbols from the ubiquitous <code>libc.so</code>). This way the DSO gets knowledge of the executable program's symbol set as if it had been statically linked with it in the first place.</p> <p>Finally, to take advantage of the DSO's API the executable program has to resolve particular symbols from the DSO via <code>dlsym()</code> for later use inside dispatch tables <em>etc.</em> In other words: The executable program has to manually resolve every symbol it needs to be able to use it. The advantage of such a mechanism is that optional program parts need not be loaded (and thus do not spend memory) until they are needed by the program in question. When required, these program parts can be loaded dynamically to extend the base program's functionality.</p> <p>Although this DSO mechanism sounds straightforward there is at least one difficult step here: The resolving of symbols from the executable program for the DSO when using a DSO to extend a program (the second way). Why? Because "reverse resolving" DSO symbols from the executable program's symbol set is against the library design (where the library has no knowledge about the programs it is used by) and is neither available under all platforms nor standardized. In practice the executable program's global symbols are often not re-exported and thus not available for use in a DSO. Finding a way to force the linker to export all global symbols is the main problem one has to solve when using DSO for extending a program at run-time.</p> <p>The shared library approach is the typical one, because it is what the DSO mechanism was designed for, hence it is used for nearly all types of libraries the operating system provides. On the other hand using shared objects for extending a program is not used by a lot of programs.</p> <p>As of 1998 there are only a few software packages available which use the DSO mechanism to actually extend their functionality at run-time: Perl 5 (via its XS mechanism and the DynaLoader module), Netscape Server, <em>etc.</em> Starting with version 1.3, Apache joined the crew, because Apache already uses a module concept to extend its functionality and internally uses a dispatch-list-based approach to link external modules into the Apache core functionality. So, Apache is really predestined for using DSO to load its modules at run-time.</p></div><div class="top"><a href="#page-header"><img alt="top" src="./images/up.gif" /></a></div><div class="section"><h2><a name="advantages" id="advantages">Advantages and Disadvantages</a></h2> <p>The above DSO based features have the following advantages:</p> <ul> <li>The server package is more flexible at run-time because the actual server process can be assembled at run-time via <code class="directive"><a href="./mod/mod_so.html#loadmodule">LoadModule</a></code> <code>httpd.conf</code> configuration commands instead of <code class="program"><a href="./programs/configure.html">configure</a></code> options at build-time. For instance this way one is able to run different server instances (standard & SSL version, minimalistic & powered up version [mod_perl, PHP3], <em>etc.</em>) with only one Apache installation.</li> <li>The server package can be easily extended with third-party modules even after installation. This is at least a great benefit for vendor package maintainers who can create a Apache core package and additional packages containing extensions like PHP3, mod_perl, mod_fastcgi, <em>etc.</em></li> <li>Easier Apache module prototyping because with the DSO/<code class="program"><a href="./programs/apxs.html">apxs</a></code> pair you can both work outside the Apache source tree and only need an <code>apxs -i</code> command followed by an <code>apachectl restart</code> to bring a new version of your currently developed module into the running Apache server.</li> </ul> <p>DSO has the following disadvantages:</p> <ul> <li>The DSO mechanism cannot be used on every platform because not all operating systems support dynamic loading of code into the address space of a program.</li> <li>The server is approximately 20% slower at startup time because of the symbol resolving overhead the Unix loader now has to do.</li> <li>The server is approximately 5% slower at execution time under some platforms because position independent code (PIC) sometimes needs complicated assembler tricks for relative addressing which are not necessarily as fast as absolute addressing.</li> <li>Because DSO modules cannot be linked against other DSO-based libraries (<code>ld -lfoo</code>) on all platforms (for instance a.out-based platforms usually don't provide this functionality while ELF-based platforms do) you cannot use the DSO mechanism for all types of modules. Or in other words, modules compiled as DSO files are restricted to only use symbols from the Apache core, from the C library (<code>libc</code>) and all other dynamic or static libraries used by the Apache core, or from static library archives (<code>libfoo.a</code>) containing position independent code. The only chances to use other code is to either make sure the Apache core itself already contains a reference to it or loading the code yourself via <code>dlopen()</code>.</li> </ul></div></div><div class="bottomlang"><p><span>Available Languages: </span><a href="./en/dso.html" title="English"> en </a> |<a href="./ja/dso.html" hreflang="ja" rel="alternate" title="Japanese"> ja </a> |<a href="./ko/dso.html" hreflang="ko" rel="alternate" title="Korean"> ko </a></p></div><div id="footer"><p class="apache">Copyright 1995-2005 The Apache Software Foundation or its licensors, as applicable.<br />Licensed under the <a href="http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0">Apache License, Version 2.0</a>.</p><p class="menu"><a href="./mod/">Modules</a> | <a href="./mod/directives.html">Directives</a> | <a href="./faq/">FAQ</a> | <a href="./glossary.html">Glossary</a> | <a href="./sitemap.html">Sitemap</a></p></div></body></html>
⌨️ 快捷键说明
复制代码
Ctrl + C
搜索代码
Ctrl + F
全屏模式
F11
切换主题
Ctrl + Shift + D
显示快捷键
?
增大字号
Ctrl + =
减小字号
Ctrl + -