|
From: | Wolfgang Lux |
Subject: | Re: GNUstep on OpenBSD.. |
Date: | Wed, 15 Dec 2010 09:36:06 +0100 |
Sebastian Reitenbach wrote:
For me the Bundle binary is a shared object, and no a standalone binary. I cannot just run it. For me, a shared object usually has a .so extension. So I still don't know why it is not a good idea to have .so extension forBundle binaries.
It is not a good idea because it just adds one more platform dependency, making the code less maintainable. Note that not all systems are using the .so suffix, e.g., I'm sitting right now in front of an OS X machine which does not use an extension for bundle executables (maybe not very surprising) and which uses .dylib instead of .so for shared libraries. On AIX, where all objects are position independent by default shared libraries use the extension .a (sic!). Still other systems were using .shlib for shared libraries. Tracking these differences is just adding needless complexity given that we can simply load the bundle executable from a file with any extension or no extension at all.
I guess there were some reasons, when it was decided how they have to look like, and don't want to question that, but rather understand why it is the way it is, since I don't see the reason, yet, and why there is an exceptionexplicitly for Windows?
I guess its because Windows refuses to load the shared object if it does not have the proper extension, but then I'm not a Windows expert.
Wolfgang
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |