httpd-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject FW: [Win32] 1.3.15; my mod_foo.dll question on the table
Date Wed, 20 Dec 2000 03:29:20 GMT
From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 9:24 PM

> From: Greg Stein []
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 8:36 PM
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 05:52:46PM -0800, John K Sterling wrote:
> > "William A. Rowe, Jr." wrote:
> > 
> > >>ApacheModuleFoo.dll?  mod_foo.dll?
> > 
> > definite +1 on switching to mod_foo.x - i could go either way on the
> > suffix.... though kevin's case is tempting...
> -1 on using a suffix other than .DLL. That is just wrong for 
> the platform.
> The "mod_foo" form is fine.

Cool... let me offer -one other though- why .so could be a good thing...

ISAPI users have .dll files in their hands.  They want to run them.  Why
not put them in modules/ and use a load module command :-)

While not for every binary (e.g. xmltok/xmlparse), this makes a bit of sense
for a specific kind of file with a specific purpose ... an Apache module.
Now folks aren't led to believe their Apache module can be loaded as an
ISAPI, and their ISAPI's can't be loaded with the LoadModule directive.

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.  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 :-/


View raw message