On 11/23/2017 11:34 AM, JonY wrote:
> On 11/22/2017 11:14 AM, Boris Kolpackov wrote:
>> JonY <10walls@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.