converting mod_dll to use dlopen/dlsym

[sameer <sa...@c2.net>]

	Before I go try and fail, is there a reason why converting
mod_dll to support UNIX dlopen/dlsym functionality would be doomed to
failure?

-- 
Sameer Parekh					Voice:   510-986-8770
President					FAX:     510-986-8777
C2Net
http://www.c2.net/				sameer@c2.net

Re: converting mod_dll to use dlopen/dlsym

[Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@elect6.jrc.it>]

Nai, works fine,

see attached, I never finished it because I had to hack around
more in the kernel and with the module counters than I liked.

Dw.

On Mon, 27 Oct 1997, sameer wrote:

> 	Before I go try and fail, is there a reason why converting
> mod_dll to support UNIX dlopen/dlsym functionality would be doomed to
> failure?
> 
> -- 
> Sameer Parekh					Voice:   510-986-8770
> President					FAX:     510-986-8777
> C2Net
> http://www.c2.net/				sameer@c2.net
> 

Re: converting mod_dll to use dlopen/dlsym

[Alexei Kosut <ak...@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us>]

On Mon, 27 Oct 1997, sameer wrote:

> 	Before I go try and fail, is there a reason why converting
> mod_dll to support UNIX dlopen/dlsym functionality would be doomed to
> failure?

Well, mod_dll is based on the mod_dld that has come with Apache since
0.8... I've never seen anyone claim it works, but Rob Thau apparently
got it working somehow when he wrote it. I imagine it's simpler to
modify that to use dynamic libraries, since it's for Unix
already. (though maybe not)

But no, there's absolutely no reason why mod_dld shouldn't work. It's
just that shared library support for Windows is always available, and
much much more convenient to the average user than compiling. On Unix,
shared library support (especially two years ago when Shambhala was
first written) is inconsistent and often non-existent, and compliation
isn't too much of a task.

-- Alexei Kosut <ak...@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us>