httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject RE: [Win32] 1.3.15; my mod_foo.dll question on the table
Date Wed, 20 Dec 2000 05:53:40 GMT
> From: []
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 11:47 PM
> In a message dated 00-12-20 00:13:47 EST, William Wrowe writes...
> > 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.
> I just renamed ApacheModulePerl.dll to
> in c:\Program Files\Apache Group\Apache\Modules
> and as far as the 'Properties' go there is only 1 thing
> that is different. The 'Type:' field is blank and doesn't
> say 'Application Extension' as it would if file extension
> was .dll instead of .so. All other information is correct.
> But guess what...
> The same is true for Microsoft's own .OCX DLLs
> The 'Type' field on the Properties is blank and the
> Folder Icon is the Microsoft flag ( type unknown )
> versus the two inter-twined wheels that would be
> seen if the file extension is .DLL.

I know... I fix that myself, and I also associate the binary
version shell extension with .dlls (and .ocx's etc) myself.

> If Microsoft doesn't care if their own DLL's are
> identified as such on GUI screens then why should 
> Apache?

I guess we don't :-)

> BTW: Even when Properties 'type' field says
> 'Application Extension'... so what? That doesn't
> even really identify a Dynamic Load Library since
> that same type name is actually used for other
> things as well. Go figure.
> Yours...
> Kevin Kiley
> CTO, Remote Communications, Inc.

View raw message