On 11/22/2017 11:14 AM, Boris Kolpackov wrote: > JonY <10wa...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Is there a problem with using .so for internal libraries instead of >> "dll"... > > I think not but I haven't tested it. The problem with using .so instead > of .dll is that producing this non-standard extension may not be easy > or possible depending on the build system/tool (e.g., libtool). Also, > you never know how other pieces of the system (like antivirus) will > react to a file that looks like a DLL but is called something else. > >
Libtool shouldn't matter since it is not used to build those, and I doubt AVs would care what the filename is called. Apache on Windows uses .so plugins too. >> ... if it simplifies the code? > > I don't think it simplifies that much and the potential (and unknown) > downside is significant. > > Thanks for the review, > Boris > I'll commit in a few days if there are no more inputs.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
