Re: solib: URL patch

[Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>]

Bryce McKinlay writes:
 > 
 > Eventually we'll probably want Java ABI support in C++. If CNI is
 > aware of the binary compatibility ABI then, aside from the obvious
 > benefits, we can make all the symbols private, which should improve
 > link/load times and reduce the size of binaries. I think we ought
 > to get the Java side of things fleshed out first before worrying
 > too much about CNI though.

Seems reasonable.

 > >>> I'd marginally prefer "sharedlib:" over "solib:".
 > >>
 > >> DSO is becoming the de facto name, AFIAA.  "dso:" might be best of
 > >> all.
 > >
 > > That might be a little surprising to Windows users, but yes, I tend
 > > to prefer dso: over solib: as well.
 > 
 > Mac OS X calls them "dylib"s. I'm not too worried, but how about just 
 > lib: ?

Good.  Yes, "lib:" it is.  I mean, we're never going to link
dynamically with a static lib, so the "dynamic" and "shared" bit is
irrelevant.

Andrew.