Re: bits[1/3]: Minimal Background Intelligent Transfer Service (bits) implementation

[Alexandre Julliard]

Roy Shea  writes:
> As far as I can tell the Bitsprx2.dll is generated from Bits.Idl, that
> is equivalent to the bits.idl I'm developing.  Since my dll is not
> acting as a proxy, at least as I understand proxy dlls (I'm still
> digging through COM books), I thought it would be more accurate to not
> include the "prx" in the name of my dll.  Simply changing the name
> from bits.dll to bitsprx2.dll is easy enough, but I worry that the
> semantics between a regular dll and a proxy dll would cause confusion
> or problems.

The only way to avoid confusion and problems is for your dll to have
the same name, and behave the same way, as the Windows one.