<div dir="ltr">I am trying to argue that the bug does not warrant closure, wine-devel does not seem like an appropriate venue for such a discussion. I am quite familiar with how much effort goes into properly implementing a full-fledged library for working with HTTP, I have done it several times in several languages. I initiated that bug to serve as a starting point to say "we need a minimal implementation", which I think was successfully illustrated. I was not aware that someone was already working on something, otherwise I would have contacted them in order to get a head start.<br>
<br>Honestly, I believe that this problem illustrates the need for these kind of bugs - if I had found a bug for WinHttp in bugzilla assigned to Zac then I could easily contact him. I do not have time to monitor wine-devel in order keep track of what everyone is working on so that I can keep from stepping on people's toes. Wine is not my full time job, and I think it is unreasonable to expect people to keep track of this kind of off-the-tree activity without some sort of database like bugzilla to keep track of who is doing what. As I'm sure other people do, I only have time to do work on Wine when I'm on my vacation.<br>
<br>Erich Hoover<br><a href="mailto:ehoover@mines.edu">ehoover@mines.edu</a><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 5:52 PM, James Hawkins <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:truiken@gmail.com">truiken@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 6:43 PM, <<a href="mailto:wine-bugs@winehq.org">wine-bugs@winehq.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> <a href="http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14810" target="_blank">http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14810</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> --- Comment #4 from Erich Hoover <<a href="mailto:ehoover@mines.edu">ehoover@mines.edu</a>> 2008-08-10 18:43:16 ---<br>
> This whole DLL has a total of 27 functions, 14 of which are currently exposed,<br>
> and only 1 is "implemented". I put some work into implementing enough of the<br>
> DLL to get RA3 to authenticate and found that it needs 9 of the functions to<br>
> operate properly. I think it is reasonable to say that implementing the rest<br>
> of the functions for WinHttp would not be too difficult. I do not think that<br>
> this particular issue is anywhere close to a broad-spectrum "Win32 API needs to<br>
> be implemented".<br>
><br>
<br>
Of course it's not the same scale as all of the Win32 API. It was an<br>
analogy illustrating why the bug is superfluous. On the other hand,<br>
you're vastly underestimating the amount of work needed to properly<br>
implement winhttp. You might want to chat with Zac Brown who is<br>
working on implementing winhttp right now. Also, please don't post in<br>
closed bugs.<br>
<br>
--<br>
<font color="#888888">James Hawkins<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br></div>