Pete Robbins wrote:
On 08/12/06, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Pete Robbins wrote:
> On 08/12/06, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I made a small change on Windows to call the Win32
>> SetErrorMode(SEM_FAILCRITICALERRORS) before calling LoadLibrary, to
>> disable the annoying popup dialogs that we were getting when
trying to
>> load extension DLLs that didn't have all their dependencies
available.
>> Windows MFC and ATL based applications do this by default as well
so I
>> think it's safe.
>>
>> What do you think of commenting out the scripts that rename the Ruby
and
>> Python and other extensions to .disabled now that this popup issue is
>> fixed, and until we implement the nicer extension packaging scheme
that
>> Pete proposed, which will resolve these loading issues in a nicer
way?
>>
>> --
>> Jean-Sebastien
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>
> +1 That's great
>
>
OK, I changed the deploy.bat scripts, the Ruby and Python DLLs are now
enabled by default. I left the deploy.bat that we were using to rename
them from .disabled to .dll in place in case we want to reuse these
scripts when we implement the scheme that we discussed before, where
extension DLLs are not enabled by default and the user explicitly
enables them by placing them in the correct "modules" directory.
Be brave... just delete them! Are you going to make the equivalent
change on
Linux?
Well :) I realized it's already like that on Linux, I think I had
changed the scripts in my environment to not name the libraries
.disabled before because this was getting in my way all the time when
testing and that change went in with revision r473873 as part of a
bigger merge. So we're now consistent between Linux and Windows... OK
I'll be brave and will take care of removing the deploy.sh and
deploy.bat that do the renames :)
What about Mac OS X? Is the loading of libraries missing dependencies a
problem there? If it is, then we'll need the new scheme that we talked
about with a modules directory, right?
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
