On 11/23/2017 11:34 AM, JonY wrote: > 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. >
Applied to trunk r255154.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
