httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject Re: [Win32] 1.3.15; my mod_foo.dll question on the table
Date Wed, 20 Dec 2000 02:20:42 GMT

In a message dated 00-12-20 01:47:47 EST, William Wrowe writes

>  After thinking about Kevin's comments, I agree we don't need to
>  worry about this registry issue.  My W2K machine tells me nothing
>  about .exe or .dll files unless they have a VER resource, and still
>  tells me the info for an .so file if it has a VER resource, so no
>  change there.  Do we want to title .so files as "Apache Modules"?
>  That could be good.
>  But here's why we must change, to .so or something else, depending
>  on what folks want to do.  A win32 user downloads a .dll file to
>  their system.  They go into Explorer.  They see nothing.

I am not trying to be schizo here, I still think the .so extension for
all platforms where it is POSSIBLE would be good... but I think the
'hidden files are no good' argument is just an ABEND on the
'who cares' scale.

What idiot would be looking at a application directory with some
stupid GUI window and not know to click 'Details' and make sure
all files are displayed? What would they be doing in that dir anyway?
What Win32 Apache program doesn't have auto-intalls? None I
know of.

It's simply 'If ifs and buts were beer and nuts we'd have ourselves a party'
stuff to worry about this as a serious issue.

>  .dll files are invisible by default.  We have enough headaches
>  without documenting how to 'unhide' our modules, as if we had
>  anything to do with the fact that they are hidden.  It's BS.

Again... what fool who is doing Web Server maintenance wouldn't 
know about the 'View|Details' setting on a Folder? Some next door
neighbor's kid home from Junior College helping out with the local
ISP's Dell machine?
>  So, we call them, or mod_foo.mod, or whatever else
>  we want to call them.  But not .dll :-(

Ok by me. I say go for it.
>  btw... take a look at the last two paragraphs of mod_so.html...
>  it looks pretty clear that .so would be legible.  Also, we can
>  offer that some modules for Apache/Win32 come as .dll files,
>  and provide an ApacheModuleFoo.dll example.  I'll mark up those
>  docs if that's what we will do.

You will have to.
The mod_perl folks are going to scream.
They will want to keep things just the way they are because
They have already hard-wired the InstallShield scripts to 
use 'ApacheModulePerl.dll' and you know how people feel
about changing InstallShield. They would rather poke a sharp
stick in their eye.

All you guys need to decide is who you want to please.
Them, or you.


View raw message