>>Yes, it's a DLL - see the bold text above. I was just tossing it out as a
>>for-what-it's-worth.
>Just so I am clear, are you suggesting what is referenced by the article a
>non-DLL implementation?

No. I'm not.

>I guess the comment about me not being interested in something threw me off a
>bit. I am not sure what that was supposed to mean or what relevance it has.

It's not that you weren't interested in the article as such, it's just that it didn't bear on the point you were working on, although earlier in the thread, I thought it did.