> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 7:26 PM > > In a message dated 00-12-19 18:38:13 EST, you William Rowe writes... > > > Win32 users, please ack if you are for/against/don't care. > > Use that committ authority and go for the full monty... > > That is... forget the .dll extension as well and use same module > dir name ( libexec ) for win32 and unix and then 98 percent > of the modules docs are non-OS dependent ( what a concept! ).
Kevin, thanks for that momentary flash of 'duh' :-) You know ... I'm personally 98% in favor of your idea :-) However, we have to consider these -are- win9x users. Our docs don't cite the full name of the dynamically loadable module (e.g. mod_auth_dbm.so), they just cite the module mod_auth_dbm. Unix folk know that if their modules are dynload, they are named .so - Win32 users expect .dll. Of course not every .dll on Win32 is named .dll, take .cpl control panel extensions, for example. But unless we plan on giving it an Apache 'brand', as opposed to simply 'looking like unix' (which I'm not trying to do) - If this could add confusion I'm hesitant to proceed. > It makes no difference if a Win32 dynamic library is actually > named .DLL or not. mod_xxx.so is just as valid as mod_xxx.dll. > You can name a Win32 DLL mod_xxx.txt if you want and it still > won't matter. It will work fine. You are right. I just think it may confuse users. Other docco folks, what's your opinion? > PLEASE make the names the same. Make Win32 build > put out dynamic load modules called mod_xxxx.so > There has never been any reason to not do so. I'll take that as a plus for mod_xxx.dll, at a bare minimum, unless others give strong backing to go the '.so' route. > Once done... TONS of cut and pastes from working httpd.conf > module setups will work AS IS between OS'es and that is sorely needed. I concur - this is probably the best argument for .so. What do you other Win32 users think? Which do you prefer? ApacheModuleFoo.dll? mod_foo.dll? mod_foo.so?
