MIDL and COM

[Peter Samuelson]

  [me]
> > As I understand it, the client and server stubs use basically the same
> > API in both IDL compilers.

[Ove Kaaven]
> The IDL (input) file has the same syntax, but if you're talking about
> the generated (output) code, then no, they don't use the same API.

I was talking about the API between my code and the IDL stubs (the one
that says "server defines foo(), client calls foo(), stub code takes
care of the rest") ... not the API between the stubs and the actual
backend libraries.  Obviously the backend implementations will look
rather different.  However, this doesn't matter because...

> Wine is about making existing Windows applications run, so code
> generated with MIDL must work.  Therefore, we can't use FreeDCE's
> core, and without the core, integration doesn't make sense.

That's the crux of the issue, and the one point I somehow managed to
overlook completely.  If we were only talking about *winelib*,
MIDL-generated code would not be relevant: you could just tell people
to recompile with the "right" IDL compiler.  It never occurred to me
that you also need to replace the *backend libraries* which are called
by the MIDL-generated stubs.

*****  Ove 1, Peter 0. (:  *****

Peter