Windows DLLs should be working.
zao at acc.umu.se
Sun Jan 10 23:31:46 EST 2010
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 01:32:51PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 12:55:35PM +0000, Neil Mitchell wrote:
> > This isn't a patch that changes the default - I suspect Windows will
> > build static exes forever more. However, there are some circumstances
> > where you need Haskell to build with DLL's (writing Haskell COM
> > components for example), and that's what this patch is attempting to
> > do.
> > All your other points are accurate about the state of Windows -
> > shoving dll's in system32 is not a good way to go, but it's a separate
> > problem from getting GHC and Dll's working so can always be tackled
> > later.
> If you want to get this working with COM, then building an assembly
> out of the DLLs is probably mandatory. So that's looking like the way
> to go.
If memory serves me right, you can register a COM DLL anywhere on the
system, it's just that modern DLLs tend to be placed SxS.
SxS is not inherently tied to any technology like COM or .NET. You can
trivially deploy anything into SxS.
Also, do not forget people who do not have administrative priviledges.
If it turns out it's impossible to install a private GHC into a
directory you have rights to, I would consider that a major regression.
Lars Viklund | zao at acc.umu.se | 070-310 47 07
More information about the Cvs-ghc