31 Dec
2003
31 Dec
'03
4:43 a.m.
So I'm still stumbling through advapi32 and there
seems to be some functions that were not exported. ANy
reason why?
For example, AccessCheckByType was but
AccessCheckByTypeAndAuditAlarm,
AccessCheckByTypeResultList,
AccessCheckByTypeResultListAndAuditAlarm,
and AccessCheckByTypeResultListAndAuditAlarmByHandle
were not mentioned in the .spec file. Are these missed
exports? Do they need to be at least stubbed?
I know this all may seem bit anal, what with about a
few thousand spec'ed APIs that need to be documented
and all. I would just like to fill in the blankes as
much as possable the first time through. I've already
had to backtrack three times to add intresting
comments I found important.(Function XYZ is only
avilible on WinNT 3.1 or higher) It would be nice to
at least have a fully spec'ed out DLL.
-Joshua
31 Dec
31 Dec
5:30 a.m.
Joshua Walker wrote:
I know this all may seem bit anal,
The more anal the merrier if you ask me.......
what with about a
few thousand spec'ed APIs that need to be
documented
and all.
I think this is a grand idea!
I would just like to fill in the blankes as
much as possable the first time through. I've
already
had to backtrack three times to add intresting
comments I found important.(Function XYZ is only
avilible on WinNT 3.1 or higher) It would be nice to
at least have a fully spec'ed out DLL.
Could you spec/stub out all the DX dlls?
i'm verrrry aware that this could break some apps/games
if a stub dlls is called. and in ceartin circumstances it may
be best not to have a stub dll.... But there is a thing called
.cvsignore and we coul'd just ignore the trouble makers untill
there at a point of usability.
And who knows I might jump in and try my hand at helping out.
And i'm sure there are others out there who could chip in..
and if all goes well we could in the end have a nice DX implementation...
So if your willing to spec/stub,,,, ill start with version resource's
and go from there.
Any other volunteers?
Alexandre this is up to you I guess.......
Can we ??
One way of looking at this is, we just want some space on
http://cvs.winehq.org/
to work....collaborate..... And there are many examples of great things
that happened
from meager beginnings..
Tom
-Joshua
1 Jan
1 Jan
12:21 a.m.
Tom <twickline(a)skybest.com> writes:
So if your willing to spec/stub,,,, ill start with
version resource's
and go from there.
Any other volunteers?
Alexandre this is up to you I guess.......
Can we ??
No. As already explained a number of times, adding stubs for new
functions is just asking for trouble, since apps will now try to call
the functions and die. Stubs should only be added if there's an app
that requires them. Same thing with dlls, unless there is a reason to
have a stub dll it's much better to not have one at all so that the
native one gets used.
--
Alexandre Julliard
julliard(a)winehq.com
1:48 p.m.
On Thu, 2004-01-01 at 00:21, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Same thing with dlls, unless there is a reason to
have a stub dll it's much better to not have one at all so that the
native one gets used.
I guess it's a matter of long term vs short term thinking, but in that
case why do we build MSHTML when we have no implementation for it, and
probably won't for some time?
Obviously we have to start somewhere, but I remember when MSHTML was
first introduced some apps stopped working because we favour builtin
DLLs over native ones, so everybody had to debug the problem (easy for
people who can interpret stub FIXMEs and know what they mean) and then
alter their config file to force mshtml to native.
thanks -mike
5:40 p.m.
I guess it's a matter of long term vs short term
thinking, but in that
case why do we build MSHTML when we have no implementation for it, and
probably won't for some time?
Well, creating the stubs is often the easiest part of working on a DLL.. So
if nobody wants to work on a DLL, what would it gain us to have the stubs
(as the people who are competent to work on it will also know how to create
the stubs themselves).
Lionel
--
Lionel Ulmer - http://www.bbrox.org/
11:40 p.m.
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
No. As already explained a number of times, adding
stubs for new
functions is just asking for trouble, since apps will now try to call
the functions and die. Stubs should only be added if there's an app
that requires them. Same thing with dlls, unless there is a reason to
have a stub dll it's much better to not have one at all so that the
native one gets used.
Okay, It has finally sunk into my hard head..
I won't ask again :-)
Tom
31 Dec
31 Dec
6:05 a.m.
Joshua Walker wrote:
So I'm still stumbling through advapi32 and there
seems to be some functions that were not exported. ANy
reason why?
For example, AccessCheckByType was but
AccessCheckByTypeAndAuditAlarm,
AccessCheckByTypeResultList,
AccessCheckByTypeResultListAndAuditAlarm,
and AccessCheckByTypeResultListAndAuditAlarmByHandle
were not mentioned in the .spec file. Are these missed
exports? Do they need to be at least stubbed?
If no app uses them, we probably shouldn't export them.
Let cruft die.
- Dan
7444
days inactive
7445
days old
6 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Dan Kegel -
Joshua Walker -
Lionel Ulmer -
Mike Hearn -
Tom