From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 9:24 PM
> From: Greg Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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? mod_foo.so? > > > > 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 :-/ Bill
