Note to self: have caffeine before replying to mail
At 08:44 5/5/01 +1000, Peter Donald wrote:
>>I also note the precedent of standard Java packages -- take JAXP for
>>example, where "jaxp.jar" and "crimson.jar" do not have version numbers in
>>the filenames -- as well as many other packages (Xerces does the same
>>thing).
>
>true - but how much pain did that cause? ;) I guess the closest thing in
>the more mature native world is looking at .dll/.so naming. In most cases
>it is fine to have them unversioned if they are in an application local
>directory. However if they live in a centralized directory they should have
>version embedded - if they don't you end up withh DLL
+ Hell +
>at every update.
>".so" files are a little easier to use as you can easily have multiple
>versions on filesystem.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Pete
>
>*-----------------------------------------------------*
>| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
>| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
>| everyone gets busy on the proof." |
>| - John Kenneth Galbraith |
>*-----------------------------------------------------*
>
>
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof." |
| - John Kenneth Galbraith |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
