CS> In the long run, however, there needs to be a way to have
CS> multiple DLL's with the same name loaded.  What happens when
CS> vendor A requires version 1.01 of a DLL and vendor B requires
CS> version 1.02 of the same DLL?  As it stands right now, situations
CS> like this essentially mean that OS/2 can only reliably run one of
CS> the two programs at any one time.

-
one thing i always wondered about: aren't dlls from os/2 always backward  
compatible (assuming the author made no error programming them)?

backward compatibility was ALWAYS the case (i remember no exception) on  
amigados, and the only way making sense to me right now...

you just had to pick up the newest version of a library. however commodore  
had implemented an easy way to give binary files version number which  
could be check by the user (via "version " as far
a i remember).
there where routines to load a library regardless of it's version and some  
that loaded only libraries with a minimum version number.

maybe someone can fill me in on having incompatible dlls of the same name?

-
oh, another question: how are things referred to in a dll? on amiga  
libraries they were always referenced to via an offset specifying which
entry of a jump table was to use. everything needed to access a library's  
function was it's offset. the functions could be namen quite individually  
to match the programmer's likes and needs.

-
and another one: why doesn't os/2 prompts the user with an information box  
stating clearly which dll couldn't be found (this way it's done on  
amigados) instead of popping up an information box simply saying that a  
program could not be started (pm right here) for whatever reason?

and why is it that os/2 doesn't simply say on the commandline that the DLL  
files named xxx was not found instead of irritating the average user with  
"xxx not found" (or similar)? but i guess that these questions
can only be  
answered by ibm, right?

-
another thing i did always wonder about is the sense of a dll supplied  
with a single program. i mean if the author is absolutely sure about  
releasing other programs interesting enough for the same user and the  
other programs make use of the dll, it's okay.

but if the author simply puts things into a dll without the intention to  
use the same dll somewhere else and without providing header files for  
other programmers to make use of it there is (for me) no obvious reason to  
use a dll, instead its another burden for the user to take care of.

as i work sometimes on macintoshies i can clearly say for me, that i very  
much like one icon and one file for one program and that i very much  
dislike to always have to have a separate directory for nearly every   
single, little program in order not to mix up the specific files (so to be  
able to remove or update a program).

-
by the way, why aren't configuration information of programs always stored  
in a programfile's extended attributes?

thanks for any reasonable answers (-:


## clemens{at}canhuth.xpand.ppp.de ##

--- CrossPoint v3.0 R