httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From TOKI...@aol.com
Subject Re: [Win32] 1.3.15; my mod_foo.dll question on the table
Date Tue, 19 Dec 2000 23:57:26 GMT

In a message dated 00-12-19 22:23:53 EST, William Rowe writes...

>  I've never seen such a report on bugs or the newslist, so this is strictly
>  hypothetical.  However, MS takes the same approach with .cpl control panel
>  applets, .ocx controls, etc.  

Yes. There really is no standard at all for naming Win2 DLL's and there
never has been. It's as imaginary as there being an 'official' command
line shell for UNIX.

DLL is what it IS... has nothing to do with what it is CALLED.

Actually... I love the trick of just adding DllMain() to an .EXE image
under Win32 and then you can use it as either an executable
OR a DLL. Works great.

>  On the other hand, if we choose .so, we also
>  increase the likelihood of some win32 user trying to load a linux built
>  module in the win32 subsystem :-/

Sure you do... but there you guys go again spending CPU cycles
worrying about what people who can barely use a computer are
going to do. I mean, really, the discussions that go on and on here
on this forum would seem to suggest that you guys develop
educational software that is going to be installed by elementary
school teachers or something. I assure you... that is not, nor
will it ever be, your target market.

Can I make an argument here?

The idea that Win32 people are more likely to download the
wrong binary for their system just because it has the same
name as other OS modules is no more of a concern than 
someone downloads a Linux mod_xxx.so for Solaris.

You guys seem to go on about Win32 being a 'different environment'
but you often ignore the fact that most UNIX systems are as 
different as the day is long and I don't hear much noise about
creating different named versions of the UNIX binaries.

The assumption you guys continually seem to make is that
of course UNIX people know that there are 27 flavors of UNIX
binaries and you have to download exactly what you need
or you are SOL... but Windows people somehow won't know 
that and you have to 'hold their hands'.

On a certain level... ( the assembler one )... Windows is no
more different than any version of UNIX that has XFree86 or
OpenLook compiled into the kernel and auto-starting out
of /etc/rc/modules.

UNIX started with streams and consoles on top of a kernel.
Windows started as a TSR on top of a console on top of a kernel.

There are more similarities than differences... and the 
'two worlds collide' more and more every day.

Ok... I just sprained my ankle climbing down off my
soapbox so let's give the 'what if they don't do the right thing'
paranoia a shot...

The following is exactly what will happen if someone downloads
a mod_xxxx.so UNIX image and tries to load it under Win32...

Windows NT 4.0 SP3

I downloaded the Linux version of mod_gzip directly from the
online mod_gzip home page.

I copied the Linux mod_gzip.so directly to the
default Apache for Windows /modules dir

I added the following to my Win32 httpd.conf file...

LoadModule gzip_module /modules/mod_gzip.so

I ran Apache for Windows and immediately got an error
dialog that explains the situation perfectly...

Apache.exe - Bad Image
The application or DLL c:\program files\apache 
group\apache\modules\mod_gzip.so
is not a valid Windows NT image.
Please check this against your installation diskette.
[OK]

I really don't know how anyone could expect the Apache Group
to provide anything clearer than what the OS itself is going to say if
someone tries to load a UNIX binary image on a Win32 system.

If someone can't figure out what happened after this message
appears then they belong in the 'I ran Apache on windows and all
I got was some black box that says MSDOS on it' category.

I think you should give mod_xxx.so for Win32 a shot.
Anyone who argues that 'It's not the right name for the
platform' is smoking something.

The potential to make ALL documentation ( and makefiles! )
'sync up' and give people the ability to 'cut and paste' good, working
config scripts from other places ( regardless of OS ) with 
no changes is a grail that the user community would 
really appreciate.

It can't get any more confusing than it is now... so what
do you have to lose?

Yours...
Kevin Kiley
CTO, Remote Communications, Inc.



Mime
View raw message