httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@lnd.com>
Subject RE: Draft proposal: Win32 Compilation Environment Step 1
Date Mon, 17 Apr 2000 16:14:15 GMT
> From: Bill Stoddard [mailto:stoddard@raleigh.ibm.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 11:10 AM
> 
> > BTW, what's wrong with linking multiple programs against the same
> > dll?  Why wouldn't we want to do this?  Isn't this the Windows way?
> >
> It causes more problems that it is worth in many cases and is 
> sometimes referred to as
> "DLL Hell". Ever notice that many Win32 install packages 
> replace one or more of the
> standard distribution DLLs?  Sometimes a later version dll is 
> replaced by an earlier
> version.  I'd prefer not to deal with it at the possible 
> expense of a little extra
> memory/storage usage.

If the path to aprlib/ApacheCore was always at the start of the PATH 
env var for all shelled programs/add-in dynamic modules, then they 
could very effectively share the specific version's apr and 
apachecore dll's.  For programs like support/ stuff, launched 
outside of apache, this gets dirtier.  My feeling is that aprlib.dll
needs to sit in the same folder as support and apache.exe.  If we
can delayload apache.exe to not bind to apachecore.dll until the 
modules path is added to the PATH env var, and NEVER load Apache.exe
to launch the child processes (launch ApacheCore.dll with the PATH
already set up correctly) we will be better off.

Mime
View raw message