Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.DLL formal review is ongoing
From: Rob Stewart (rob.stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-07-14 04:50:39
On July 13, 2015 4:24:33 PM EDT, Antony Polukhin <antoshkka_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 2015-07-13 21:47 GMT+03:00 Rob Stewart <rob.stewart_at_[hidden]>:
> > 4. A generic term I use for DLLs, shared objects, etc. is "dynamic
> > library." I suggest that the documentation define that term once, up
> > and then use it everywhere else rather than repeating the "DLL,
> > object (DSO), etc." phrase. I'd also encourage using that name for
> > library itself (Boost.DynamicLibrary) and for the shared_object
> I was trying to keep namings platform neutral: "dynamic library" is
> Windows specific, "shared object" is too POSIX specific...
The Windows term is Dynamic Link Library, not Dynamic Library. The POSIX term is Dynamic Shared Object. They are both libraries that can be loaded dynamically rather than statically, so, Dynamic Library is the more generic name.
The Apple terms are, I find, Dynamic Library or Bundle, though I don't know the specific differences between them and whether you support both or even should. Obviously, Dynamic Library isn't so generic when you add Apple to the mix.
> Let it bee DLL
> for library abbreviation and "shared object" mostly in docs and source
> codes. However it does not seem so right and platform neutral right
Exactly. "DLL" is very much Windows specific. "shared_object" is POSIX specific. Combining them is actually confusing. For example, seeing "shared_object" in your "DLL" library implies a cross-platform adapter to DSOs for Windows rather than a generic dynamic library class.
> especially when dll::shared_object and dll::library_info are nearby in
> code. It may be profitable to rename dll::library_info into
I'd use "dl" as the namespace name "dynamic_library" as the main class name, and keep "library_info". "binary_info" could describe most anything that's binary.
> > I expect to be able to complete a review sometime next week, if the
> > review manager is inclined to wait for it.
> Anyway, I'm interested in your opinion, so please send the review when
> you'll be ready.
> Any library related comments from any reviewer are welcomed even after
> the review end.
(Sent from my portable computation engine)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk