WINED3D: Implement GetCreationParameters

[Andreas Mohr]

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 03:49:55PM +0100, Peter Beutner wrote:
> Hi
> Andreas Mohr schrieb:
> > We're not a library.We're a very, very, very, very specific piece of software
> Well, I remember I was told that wine is just another gui toolkit like gtk+ or qt *scnr*.
Good memory ;)
However I didn't state that, and I wouldn't want to ;)

> > that is required to absolutely, positively fully emulate Windows to the
> > closest extent possible (within practical limits, of course).
> > As such debating whether to delay a crash by adding useless checks
> > *that do not exist in Windows*(!) to *work around* strange behaviour most
> > likely caused by our own non-conformant code is utterly pointless.
> And I thought the whole idea behind error-checking was not just to delay the crash
> but to entirely prevent it and instead inform the user what and where something failed.
> I would prefer it if the application pops up a message "xyz failed" rather than a crash.
> (admittingly, in how far the application does this in a proper way is entirely out of
> our hands ;) )
Can you mention an example of Windows popping up an error message "function
foo baz called with invalid parameter ..., what do you want me to do?".
See? Me neither...

And how do you want to """prevent""" anything?? Forget it...

> Let's just hope the kernel devs don't adopt your "Better-crash-than-return-an-error" strategy :p
The kernel developers code according to their very own rules, they're the
ones to design stuff properly and thus fully know error conditions and
corner cases of the code they're designing from scratch.
We *absolutely* don't - especially when considering MSDN "correctness"
<expletive deleted>.

Any additional error checking in Wine that's *not done by Windows* to make
(semi-)abnormal code flow keep running is A Very Bad Thing (tm).

> > If there's a problem that we need to be aware of, then we'd better get to know
> > about it NOW, not 5 lines, not 3000 relay lines and not 10 minutes after it
> > occurred and nobody ever remembers what the actual problem was.
> To repeat it, if that crash happens you are *already* "3000 relay lines" after the actually
> problem and you have *no* clue what the actual problem is.
That may well be the case, but I sure as hell don't want to even increase
my trouble by orders of magnitude by waiting a lot longer in this error case...

Andreas Mohr