> -----Original Message----- > From: Jaroslaw Kowalski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, 20 June 2003 5:43 p.m. > To: Thong (Tum) Nguyen; 'Miguel de Icaza' > Cc: 'juan'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Mono-list] .dll .exe ? > > I think that DLL extension makes some sense, because "Dynamically Linked > Library" seems to explain the file contents pretty well.
It is a dynamically linked library but so are activex controls, control panel applets and device drivers and they don't use the ".dll" extension. > > It is way better than SO - "Shared Object" - on Unix/Linux, because the term > "Object" has a totally different meaning in CLI world. > > .DNA can be confusing because the acronym is already established (remember > the human genome project?). I didn't realise the human genome project used the ".DNA" file extension. Someone could argue ".class" is too confusing as well. > Besides, it refers to a trademarked technology (Dot Net) not the CLI which > is a standard. Good point. It still looks cooler than ".dll". > > Can you explain your idea about RNA? What's wrong with *.netmodule? DNA helixes are made up of RNA strands. .NET assemblies are made up of modules..... > > I think MS could make it all consistent by renaming *.dll to *.assembly (not > the *.asm because it is a assembly-language source code). I think that > *.exe's should remain intact and there should be either wrappers that remove > extensions or binfmt_misc to facilitate their use under Linux. EXEs are assemblies too. How about ".library". > > Just my 0.02 PLN > > Jarek > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Thong (Tum) Nguyen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Miguel de Icaza'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "'juan'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 5:18 AM > Subject: RE: [Mono-list] .dll .exe ? > > > > Hi Miguel, > > > > I agree that it made sense for Microsoft to use the DLL "vessel" format. > > I just don't see why they needed to keep the "DLL" file extension. > > Nothing about windows prevents DLLs from having different file > > extensions and as I noted, many DLLs on windows do actually use > > different file extensions :-). > > > > I'm still campaigning for .DNA for libraries and .RNA for modules. Not > > sure what the extension for executables should be yet :-). > > > > ^Tum > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:mono-list- > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Miguel de Icaza > > > Sent: Thursday, 19 June 2003 8:08 a.m. > > > To: Thong (Tum) Nguyen > > > Cc: 'juan'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: RE: [Mono-list] .dll .exe ? > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > I'll never understand why Microsoft used the .DLL extension. Even > > > > pre-dotnet dlls didn't always use .DLL (e.g. ActiveX controls use > > .OCX > > > > and control panel applets used .CPL). > > > > > > In .NET you can mix managed and unmanaged code into the same assembly > > > (Managed C++ can do this for example). So you can actually have mixed > > > assemblies, so it makes sense to reuse the "vesel" format. > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list > > > _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
