[Mono-list] .dll .exe ?

[Thong (Tum) Nguyen]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jaroslaw Kowalski [mailto:jaak@zd.com.pl]
> Sent: Friday, 20 June 2003 5:43 p.m.
> To: Thong (Tum) Nguyen; 'Miguel de Icaza'
> Cc: 'juan'; mono-list@ximian.com
> Subject: Re: [Mono-list] .dll .exe ?
> 
> I think that DLL extension makes some sense, because "Dynamically
Linked
> Library" seems to explain the file contents pretty well.

It is a dynamically linked library but so are activex controls, control
panel applets and device drivers and they don't use the ".dll"
extension.

> 
> It is way better than SO - "Shared Object" - on Unix/Linux, because
the term
> "Object" has a totally different meaning in CLI world.
> 
> .DNA can be confusing because the acronym is already established
(remember
> the human genome project?).

I didn't realise the human genome project used the ".DNA" file
extension.  Someone could argue ".class" is too confusing as well.

> Besides, it refers to a trademarked technology (Dot Net) not the CLI
which
> is a standard.

Good point.  It still looks cooler than ".dll".

> 
> Can you explain your idea about RNA? What's wrong with *.netmodule?

DNA helixes are made up of RNA strands.  .NET assemblies are made up of
modules.....

> 
> I think MS could make it all consistent by renaming *.dll to
*.assembly (not
> the *.asm because it is a assembly-language source code). I think that
> *.exe's should remain intact and there should be either wrappers that
remove
> extensions or binfmt_misc to facilitate their use under Linux.

EXEs are assemblies too.  How about ".library".

> 
> Just my 0.02 PLN
> 
> Jarek
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Thong (Tum) Nguyen" <tum@veridicus.com>
> To: "'Miguel de Icaza'" <miguel@ximian.com>
> Cc: "'juan'" <jcb@niluge.net>; <mono-list@ximian.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 5:18 AM
> Subject: RE: [Mono-list] .dll .exe ?
> 
> 
> > Hi Miguel,
> >
> > I agree that it made sense for Microsoft to use the DLL "vessel"
format.
> > I just don't see why they needed to keep the "DLL" file extension.
> > Nothing about windows prevents DLLs from having different file
> > extensions and as I noted, many DLLs on windows do actually use
> > different file extensions :-).
> >
> > I'm still campaigning for .DNA for libraries and .RNA for modules.
Not
> > sure what the extension for executables should be yet :-).
> >
> > ^Tum
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: mono-list-admin@lists.ximian.com [mailto:mono-list-
> > > admin@lists.ximian.com] On Behalf Of Miguel de Icaza
> > > Sent: Thursday, 19 June 2003 8:08 a.m.
> > > To: Thong (Tum) Nguyen
> > > Cc: 'juan'; mono-list@ximian.com
> > > Subject: RE: [Mono-list] .dll .exe ?
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > > I'll never understand why Microsoft used the .DLL extension.
Even
> > > > pre-dotnet dlls didn't always use .DLL (e.g. ActiveX controls
use
> > .OCX
> > > > and control panel applets used .CPL).
> > >
> > > In .NET you can mix managed and unmanaged code into the same
assembly
> > > (Managed C++ can do this for example).  So you can actually have
mixed
> > > assemblies, so it makes sense to reuse the "vesel" format.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Mono-list maillist  -  Mono-list@lists.ximian.com
> > > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mono-list maillist  -  Mono-list@lists.ximian.com
> > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
> >
>