MS OLE questions
Gregory M. Turner
gmturner007 at ameritech.net
Tue Jul 15 10:51:53 CDT 2003
On Tuesday 15 July 2003 07:34 am, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> tir, 15.07.2003 kl. 12.38 skrev Mike Hearn:
> > Another question (sorry ;) - is it possible to only merge the parts that
> > touch ole32.dll, and continue to use native oleaut32 and rpcrt4?
> I'm not sure. I'd expect native rpcrt4 (at least the NT/2000 versions of
> it) to do some stuff that Wine doesn't support, like NT LPC ports (which
> is a kernel feature exported by ntdll, and as far as I know this is not
> implemented in wine). Perhaps the win95/98 version of rpcrt4 has a small
> chance of working.
Native W98SE rpcrt4 & ole* dll's work reasonably well, or used to. They are
often very ornery until you drag in a crapload of native supporting dll's.
Ove is precisely correct about what will happen with NT/2000/XP rpcrt4. They
barf calling the LPC Ports API's. This is why I have placed those API's on
my todo list (more like totrytodo list ;) ).
> > ie, basically - how many crosscalls are there between wine code in
> > ole32, oleaut32, rpcrt4 - do your patches that add inter-thread
> > marshalling depend explicitly on your typelib marshaller?
> oleaut32 and ole32 has in theory completely independent marshallers, you
> can use any combination as long as they use compatible transports, in
> this case that both use rpcrt4's dcom stuff. So you can use Marcus's
> oleaut32 code (as long as you adapt it for RPC), it doesn't matter for
> ole32. Though you probably can't use native oleaut32 with builtin
> rpcrt4, because like I mentioned earlier, the core of the typelib
> marshaller should have been in rpcrt4, and that's where native oleaut32
> expects it to be. And as you may have noticed, native ole32 uses a lot
> of undocumented rpcrt4 features that I haven't figured out the exact
> behaviour of.
Sounds right to me.
"We must stop thinking of the individual and start
thinking about what is best for society."
-Hillary Clinton, 1993
More information about the wine-devel