You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com> on 2001/02/07 19:36:01 UTC
Fw: [Win32] 1.3.15; my mod_foo.dll question on the table
Looks like at keat part of this change already has a veto outstanding...
Bill
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 11:13:29PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > > From: TOKILEY@aol.com [mailto:TOKILEY@aol.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 11:06 PM
> > >
> > > In a message dated 00-12-19 21:31:45 EST, Greg Stein wrote...
> > >
> > > > -1 on using a suffix other than .DLL. That is just wrong
> > > for the platform.
> > >
> > > The .DLL suffix has never been any kind of 'official' standard.
>
> Sure, it isn't "official", but it is definitely a de facto standard.
>
> > > A DLL is what is IS... it doesn't matter what it is CALLED.
>
> Duh. Give me a break.
>
> >...
> > > Naming a Win32 DLL something other than .DLL is no more 'wrong
> > > for the platform than naming a text file 'mystuff' instead of
> > > 'mystuff.txt'.
> >
> > I pointed out one more problem on the newsgroup I didn't mention
> > here. Calling it .so means you need to associate .so's with the
> > dll type in the registry, getting the QuickViewer and properties
> > Dll tab in sync. I have no problem changing the installer to do
> > this, but if you are a cvs grab and build user (not using the
> > installer) we've created a tad more work for you if you actually
> > care about the module file data.
>
> And this is exactly why using .DLL is important. There are a LOT of things
> that see that .DLL extension and know what it means. Same with *people*.
>
> And your comment about dropping the .txt is directly on the spot with why
> .DLL is important. If you double-click "mystuff" then you get a little
> dialog asking what to open the file with. If you double click on
> "mystuff.txt", then Notepad pops up automatically.
>
> Extensions are very important on Windows, for better or worse.
>
> I will repeat once more, and suggest that asking people on the windows
> newsgroup is moot: -1 on using something other than .DLL.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
> --
> Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
>
Re: [Win32] 1.3.15; my mod_foo.dll question on the table
Posted by Cynic <cy...@mail.cz>.
I'm just a user of win32 Apache, and have subscribed this
list today, so excuse me if I break any local netiquette
rules, but I was really happy to see the .so files in the
distro a few weeks ago.
At 20:14 7.2. 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote the following:
--------------------------------------------------------------
>From: "Bill Stoddard" <bi...@wstoddard.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 10:38 AM
>
>
>> Looks like at LEAST part of this change already has a veto outstanding...
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> > Looks like at keat part of this change already has a veto outstanding...
>> >
>> > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 11:13:29PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> > > > > From: TOKILEY@aol.com [mailto:TOKILEY@aol.com]
>> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 11:06 PM
>> > > > >
>> > > > > In a message dated 00-12-19 21:31:45 EST, Greg Stein wrote...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > -1 on using a suffix other than .DLL. That is just wrong
>> > > > > for the platform.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The .DLL suffix has never been any kind of 'official' standard.
>> > >
>> > > Sure, it isn't "official", but it is definitely a de facto standard.
>> > >
>> > > I will repeat once more, and suggest that asking people on the windows
>> > > newsgroup is moot: -1 on using something other than .DLL.
>
>This veto was retracted on several points (I'm not sure which one specifically
>changed Greg's mind the most), but those included...
>
>1. Win32 does a good job hiding .dll files from the user's awareness, therefore
> it is very easy to 'loose' a downloaded apache module that doesn't show up
> in explorer (sure, you and I toggle 'show system files' - but does everyone?)
>
>2. Win32 users could very easily transpose the apache and isapi 'modules'. They
> have nothing to do with one another, but naming apache modules .so makes the
> distinction more clear than it was.
>
>3. The docs just became hugely simpler. No distictions anymore between unix and
> win32 syntax. This is a -huge- win.
>
>I was as torn as you are today. The deciding factor, for me, was that the change
>eases the pain of the transition to 2.0 for our users. A little pain today, and
>they are more familiar with 2.0 when they approach it.
>
>Bill
------end of quote------
____________________________________________________________
Cynic:
A member of a group of ancient Greek philosophers who taught
that virtue constitutes happiness and that self control is
the essential part of virtue.
cynic@mail.cz
RE: [Win32] 1.3.15; my mod_foo.dll question on the table
Posted by Allan Edwards <ak...@meepzor.com>.
> I was as torn as you are today. The deciding factor, for me, was that the change
> eases the pain of the transition to 2.0 for our users. A little pain today, and
> they are more familiar with 2.0 when they approach it.
>
I disagree, people are not expecting changes of this nature with
1.3 bugfix releases. The conf file migration issue is a key factor
in my opinion. Whereas with 2.0 people are expecting major
differences and would more readily accept it.
Allan
Re: [Win32] 1.3.15; my mod_foo.dll question on the table
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@covalent.net>.
From: "Bill Stoddard" <bi...@wstoddard.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 10:38 AM
> Looks like at LEAST part of this change already has a veto outstanding...
>
> Bill
>
> > Looks like at keat part of this change already has a veto outstanding...
> >
> > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 11:13:29PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > > > > From: TOKILEY@aol.com [mailto:TOKILEY@aol.com]
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 11:06 PM
> > > > >
> > > > > In a message dated 00-12-19 21:31:45 EST, Greg Stein wrote...
> > > > >
> > > > > > -1 on using a suffix other than .DLL. That is just wrong
> > > > > for the platform.
> > > > >
> > > > > The .DLL suffix has never been any kind of 'official' standard.
> > >
> > > Sure, it isn't "official", but it is definitely a de facto standard.
> > >
> > > I will repeat once more, and suggest that asking people on the windows
> > > newsgroup is moot: -1 on using something other than .DLL.
This veto was retracted on several points (I'm not sure which one specifically
changed Greg's mind the most), but those included...
1. Win32 does a good job hiding .dll files from the user's awareness, therefore
it is very easy to 'loose' a downloaded apache module that doesn't show up
in explorer (sure, you and I toggle 'show system files' - but does everyone?)
2. Win32 users could very easily transpose the apache and isapi 'modules'. They
have nothing to do with one another, but naming apache modules .so makes the
distinction more clear than it was.
3. The docs just became hugely simpler. No distictions anymore between unix and
win32 syntax. This is a -huge- win.
I was as torn as you are today. The deciding factor, for me, was that the change
eases the pain of the transition to 2.0 for our users. A little pain today, and
they are more familiar with 2.0 when they approach it.
Bill
Re: [Win32] 1.3.15; my mod_foo.dll question on the table
Posted by Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>.
Looks like at LEAST part of this change already has a veto outstanding...
Bill
> Looks like at keat part of this change already has a veto outstanding...
>
> > On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 11:13:29PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > > > From: TOKILEY@aol.com [mailto:TOKILEY@aol.com]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 11:06 PM
> > > >
> > > > In a message dated 00-12-19 21:31:45 EST, Greg Stein wrote...
> > > >
> > > > > -1 on using a suffix other than .DLL. That is just wrong
> > > > for the platform.
> > > >
> > > > The .DLL suffix has never been any kind of 'official' standard.
> >
> > Sure, it isn't "official", but it is definitely a de facto standard.
> >
> > > > A DLL is what is IS... it doesn't matter what it is CALLED.
> >
> > Duh. Give me a break.
> >
> > >...
> > > > Naming a Win32 DLL something other than .DLL is no more 'wrong
> > > > for the platform than naming a text file 'mystuff' instead of
> > > > 'mystuff.txt'.
> > >
> > > I pointed out one more problem on the newsgroup I didn't mention
> > > here. Calling it .so means you need to associate .so's with the
> > > dll type in the registry, getting the QuickViewer and properties
> > > Dll tab in sync. I have no problem changing the installer to do
> > > this, but if you are a cvs grab and build user (not using the
> > > installer) we've created a tad more work for you if you actually
> > > care about the module file data.
> >
> > And this is exactly why using .DLL is important. There are a LOT of things
> > that see that .DLL extension and know what it means. Same with *people*.
> >
> > And your comment about dropping the .txt is directly on the spot with why
> > .DLL is important. If you double-click "mystuff" then you get a little
> > dialog asking what to open the file with. If you double click on
> > "mystuff.txt", then Notepad pops up automatically.
> >
> > Extensions are very important on Windows, for better or worse.
> >
> > I will repeat once more, and suggest that asking people on the windows
> > newsgroup is moot: -1 on using something other than .DLL.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -g
> >
> > --
> > Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
> >
>