[Evolution] Why not merge camel and camel-provider together into one shared object?

[Philip Van Hoof <spam pvanhoof be>]

Hi there,

I changed Tinymail's build setup to simply merge its camel and its
camel-provider together. 

This posed no problems other than having to adapt the Makefile.am of all
providers and changing the .pc file.

Because this might make startup time a little bit faster (no need to
mmap two shared object files, for example), I wonder why the decision
was made to split the library up into two parts?

I kinda like the split because in code-architecture this will make it
more easy to migrate to GMime one day. But other than that, I'm not
getting the point ...

Anyway, I changed Tinymail's camel-lite vs. camel-lite-provider by
letting it compile to one shared object file. This is working fine and
on the Nokia tablet might make startup a tiny bit faster. Probably not
really measurably faster, though.


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be