From: daz <dooby@...10.karoo.co.uk>
Date: 2004-05-14T12:33:49+09:00
Subject: [OT] .dll / .so (was Re: popen3 on windows)


Nobu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At Fri, 14 May 2004 05:51:45 +0900,
> Joel VanderWerf wrote in [ruby-talk:100179]:
> > I'm puzzlied, why does VC generate a .so instead of a .dll? Oh well,
> > ruby seems to load it with no problem.
>
> Because nothing is prefixed to library files on Windows
> traditionally, whereas "lib" for Unixes.  For instance, iconv
> extension library requires external DLL named iconv.dll in
> common, it would introduce confusion if the ruby extension also
> were have .dll suffix.
>

Mmm...
sqlite-ruby uses the external sqlite.dll

The extconf has:
  create_makefile( "_sqlite" )

and creates _sqlite.dll internal dll   (BTW: actually _sqlite.so)

In a script, we say -- require 'sqlite' ...

Ruby finds sqlite.rb (one-liner) before .dll (or .so) which says:

      require '_sqlite'

_sqlite.dll uses sqlite.dll OK.

Link against _sqlite.lib or sqlite.lib OK
 ... no conflict ... everyone's happy.

sqlite-ruby is built safely, avoiding conflict.  It's slightly
more tricky to set up, but it's invisible to the user.

=========

<duck>
With the new change, however, I can write a Ruby package called
KERNEL32 or USER32 etc.  Build will safely create KERNEL32.so
and save me from trouble ;))
</duck>

I distributed a dll made to run with Ruby 1.6 -> 1.9 on
Windows only called ___.so and in the FAQ is:
  1) "There's no dll in the zip file."
  2) "What's this ___.so" thing ?

;-)

But I don't have a problem with the new setup.
It's in the Changelog, so I was able to find the information.


daz