Re: solib: URL patch

[Bryce McKinlay <bryce at mckinlay dot net dot nz>]

On Thursday, Aug 14, 2003, at 05:23 Pacific/Auckland, Jeff Sturm wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > Does there need to be any CNI mechanism for this?  Or is Java's
> > > Class.forName() etc. adequate to load/invoke the solib?
> >
> > I wouldn't have thought so, no.  At present we have a direct way of
> > invoking Java methods in a shared object from C++ code; do we want to
> > destroy that ability?
> >
> > Unless, as was suggested, we alter the C++ compiler to use the
> > indirect dispatch scheme...
>
> I don't have a strong opinion.  Indirect dispatch is probably less
> important for CNI than Java code, but someone may have a good
> reason for needing/wanting it.

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.

> > > 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: ?

Regards

Bryce.