httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject RE: [Win32] 1.3.15; my mod_foo.dll question on the table
Date Wed, 20 Dec 2000 05:13:29 GMT
> From: TOKILEY@aol.com [mailto:TOKILEY@aol.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 11:06 PM
> 
> In a message dated 00-12-19 21:31:45 EST, Greg Stein wrote...
> 
> > -1 on using a suffix other than .DLL. That is just wrong 
> for the platform.
> 
> The .DLL suffix has never been any kind of 'official' standard.
> 
> A DLL is what is IS... it doesn't matter what it is CALLED.

Ok... I've thrown this specific question out to the folks who 
actually care.  I'll be watching the feedback on the
comp.infosystems.www.servers.ms-windows newsgroup to see if
anyone there also has a -strong- opinion.  Right now, Greg is
strongly for .dll, and Kevin is so for .so.  I think the rest
of us are torn, so I'll see if users have to anything to say.

> Naming a Win32 DLL something other than .DLL is no more 'wrong
> for the platform than naming a text file 'mystuff' instead of 
> 'mystuff.txt'.

I pointed out one more problem on the newsgroup I didn't mention
here.  Calling it .so means you need to associate .so's with the
dll type in the registry, getting the QuickViewer and properties
Dll tab in sync.  I have no problem changing the installer to do
this, but if you are a cvs grab and build user (not using the
installer) we've created a tad more work for you if you actually
care about the module file data.

Bill

Mime
View raw message