On Dec 7, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Eric MSP Veith wrote: > Am Dienstag, 7. Dezember 2010, 17:48:36 schrieben Sie: >>> Sure, in that case we have to name the file "rpm.so". Otherwise "require >> >> Is there any reason _NOT_ to name a DSO so that ldconfig/dlopen can be >> interchangeably used? > > Sorry, I don't understand you here. :-/ >
Perhaps I don't understand. What is the issue naming "rpm.so"? If the answer is that ruby wishes module names, the answer (like in python) is a top side "rpm" for the module name, and a bottom-side _rpm.so containing compiled code that is loaded by the top side of the module. See how python is done with __init__.py (the top side) loading _rpmmodule.so (the bottom side). All bindings should be architected like this imho. One gains the ability to extend the module without compiling code. 73 de Jeff ______________________________________________________________________ RPM Package Manager http://rpm5.org Developer Communication List rpm-devel@rpm5.org
