DCE 1.2.2 released under LGPL license (strategically important for Wine)
mike at navi.cx
Mon Jan 17 12:33:22 CST 2005
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 22:23:54 +0000, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> you are correct about DCE 1.2.2 not containing DCOM: it is
> FreeDCE that does.
> other than that - with all due respect, and if i understand
> you correctly: you are wrong [or looking in the wrong place]
I'm afraid FreeDCE contains some obsolete IDL (uses ancient interface
names) and a few stubs. It doesn't implement DCOM or anything like it.
> are you _seriously_ intending to reimplement the DCE/RPC IDL compiler -
> because that's what's required!!!
Yes. We have no choice, there are no IDL compilers today that generate
MIDL compatible output (as far as I'm aware).
> you _cannot_ be serious about reinventing the 250,000 lines of c code
> required to properly support DCE/RPC which is a prerequisite for
> supporting DCOM.
We are very serious, in fact, a lot of the work has already been done. We
don't care about supporting every feature of DCE/RPC, most of them are
simply never used by Windows applications.
You're incorrect that DCE/RPC is a prerequisite for DCOM. If you don't
care about wire compatibility (for now, we don't) it is not, and our
current DCOM code doesn't use RPC at all.
> please tell me i am wrong in believing that you are giving serious
> consideration to a _third_ DCE/RPC runtime and development environment,
> to compete with samba 4's GPL'd implementation which is in development
> and with FreeDCE's complete reference implementation which is available
> under an OSF 1.0 BSD-like license.
You are not wrong, that is exactly what we're doing. There is an open
dialog between us and the Samba4 team on where we can share code, however
they do not have binary compatibility as an explicit goal which means our
work does not overlap as much as you seem to think it does.
More information about the wine-devel