Thanks for the responses guys. That all makes sense.

The only change that I'd propose is therefore that the Perl and Java
bindings:

bindings/perl/libcproton_perl.so bindings/java/libproton-swig.so

... should both be renamed to libcproton.so.

Compared to the other bindings, it seems inconsistent for the former to
state its Perl-ness in its name, and for the latter to state its Swig-ness.

Thoughts?

Phil
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 11:04:31AM -0500, Ted Ross wrote:
> Phil,
>
> The only shared-object in that list that is a proper "library" is
> libqpid-proton.so.  The others are extension modules for their
> various scripting languages.  I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that
> the naming conventions are dictated by the scripting language's
> extension mechanisms.

That's true. The Ruby VM requires the name for a native extension
library has to match the name of the extension, and also the
initialization entry point in the library; i.e., in order to do a
"require 'qpid_proton'" we need a file named "qpid_proton.so" that has
an method named "Init_qpid_proton" inside.

--
Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc.
Delivering value year after year.
Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/

Reply via email to