Craig Swanson doth sayeth in a message unto Craig Morrison:

CS> name being regarded as the same DLL.  However, I don't
CS> really think this bug fix was in the spirit of OS/2 -- i.e.,
CS> it added a limit rather than removed one.

  Exactly, we as developer's are expected to query path lengths and the
associated information about the file systems. So why aren't the people who
are writing the operating system following the same rules? :-)

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

  Agreed..

CS> vendor A requires version 1.01 of a DLL and vendor B
CS> requires version 1.02 of the same DLL?  As it stands right
CS> now, situations like this essentially mean that OS/2 can
CS> only reliably run one of the two programs at any one time.

  In this instance it is responsibility of the developer's of the DLL to
insure backwards compatibility (I know those are dirty words) in the later
version of the DLL.

  Where the larger problem comes into the light is when two different
vendors have a name clash on their DLLs. In this situation though, it isn't
going to matter how long the names are, because clashes can still occur.
However, something longer than 8.3 does reduce the possibility for one.

 See ya,

Craig
cam{at}wpc.cioe.com

... ALIMONY: A matter of wife and debt.

--- timEd/2-B9