[PD-dev] help me with my DLL snafu
Thomas Grill
gr at grrrr.org
Tue Jan 10 12:40:26 CET 2006
>>
>>> so you can just use the native .so extension
>>
>> Sorry, i forgot to mention it, but as stated in my original proposal
>> (in December), platform-native shared library extensions
>> (.so,.dll,.dylib) should be supported as well.
>
> Why do we need to support the platform-specific shared lib formats? I
> think this will just add confusion for no real gain that I can see.
yes, i think you are right... I was arguing from my viewpoint as a
developer, where it's clearer to have 3 different extensions for 3
platforms but yet, having separate folders is just as good.
>
>> Still, to avoid name-clashes with system or third-party libraries
>> having a pd-specific extension is important. .pdo doesn't sound too
>> bad (.pdx and .pdb don't seem to be good, because ambigous choices)
>
> Do we really need to use a 3 character extension? I mean how many
> people are really using DOS any more? .pd_darwin and .pd_linux have
> been working fine for a long time, Windows has no problem with .jpeg
> and .html for example.
>
> .pdo is taken by Microsoft. It looks like basically all .pd?
> extensions are taken:
>
> http://filext.com/alphalist.php?extstart=%5EP
>
> We could make it technically correct (for single file objects at
> least) and use .pdclass. But .pdext seems acceptable.
>
To my mind, there's no reason to stay with 3 characters. .pdext seems
to be clear and self-descriptive. I'm open for any reasonable
extension, as long as this stuff gets implemented
best greetings,
Thomas
More information about the Pd-dev
mailing list