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: .dll extension (was: Re: [Win32] 1.3.15; my mod_foo.dll question on the table)
Date Wed, 20 Dec 2000 07:31:01 GMT
> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@lyra.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 1:10 AM
> 
> hehe... I hate that "hide .DLL stuff" and turn it off first thing whenever I
> install Windows. I hadn't thought about this since I don't deal with it :-)

What coder doesn't?  (That is, except the first time it bit you in the ass.)

> All righty... I retract the darn veto on losing the .DLL extension. If we're
> going to select a new one, then it should be unique so that we can create an
> association for it.

Thank you... and I agree we need an associated file name.

> .mod is a sound file, I think, so that doesn't work.

True.

> .so is not mnemonic at all

This is true, but .so is what is scattered throughout the docs.  This would
eliminate the special case.  Your point above, if we were to create an
association for it ... I'm thinking of just calling it "Loadable Module".
This way, even if they are a unix compatibility user actually building .so
files themselves, they won't be too offended.

> .apm or .amd seem okay. I'd really like .apmod if we don't have to stick
> with the darn 8.3 convention. (which I presume we don't, given mod_auth_*).

We don't (Apache doesn't run on an 8.3-only system anyway, not since winsock2
was introduced as a requirement.)  .apmod is certainly viable.  Only, it 
wouldn't match any of our existing conventions.  .so would.  If we were 
discussing changing apache modules across platforms in 2.0 to use .apmod, I
would back that 100% - but I don't seriously believe for one minute that you
or Ryan want to do that.  .so, defined as "Loadable Module" is probably as
simple and to-the-docs as we can get.


Mime
View raw message