[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