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.