[PATCH] async IO API, reworked

[Alexandre Julliard]

Martin Wilck <Martin.Wilck at fujitsu-siemens.com> writes:

> To achieve that, we can put functionally equivalent code into each DLL's
> sources, or we can provide a header that defines only static functions -
> as the first version of my patch did. That approach has the advantage
> that we won't have to repeat the same code in source files of different DLLs.
> What would be wrong with that?

One thing is that it introduces a header that doesn't exist under
Windows. That can be acceptable, we have a few internal headers
already; but it must be avoided as much as possible. The bigger
problem is that you not only share static functions, but also data
structures; and this is a big problem when trying to remain compatible
between different versions of the various dlls.

Ultimately we may need to formalize this as part of the wine server
interface, and we may not be able to avoid data structures
completely. I do think that it should be possible to make the dlls
more independent by doing more work in the server; but we should
probably finish the implementation first and then we can start
cleaning things up.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard at winehq.com