DCE 1.2.2 released under LGPL license (strategically important for Wine)
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
lkcl at lkcl.net
Mon Jan 17 15:58:54 CST 2005
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 05:44:26PM -0500, Wez Furlong wrote:
> I've been distant from DCE for a little while, so I don't have all the
> details at the tip of my brain.
> Luke isn't quite correct, but is mostly correct :-)
burblburble never truer...
> FreeDCE doesn't contain a working DCOM implementation.
ah - i wasn't aware of that.
> The following
> areas need(ed) some work for that:
> 1/ NTLMSSP (which we now have in freedce, thanks to Luke)
and GSS-API thanks to luke howard [although it's not needed for
> 2/ The rpcd/endpoint mapper needs awareness of ORPC and implement one or
> two ORPC specific services in order to maintain the lifetime of remotely
> activated components.
which jelmer of the samba team is aware of because he has _also_
started implementing DCOM.
> 3/ The IDL compiler and marshalling stubs need awareness of ORPC
> 4/ On top of that, the local COM library needs to be implemented
> Filling out these areas is *massively less work* than re-implementing
> DCE-RPC; I made a fair start on (2) and (3) 4 years ago, but lack of
> interest from the world at large (and a need to pay my bills) caused it
> to be put on hold.
thank you for filling in the areas in which my knowledge was hazy
about what was involved.
> Please believe me when I say that there is a large amount of non-trivial
> code in there; I have huge respect for the people that wrote it and the
> amount of time that it took to get it there. Don't forget that this is
> production quality code that has been used by huge players for years.
ibm, dec, fujitsu, entegrity, arthur anderson, HP - about the only
people who _haven't_ really used it are sun microsystems because they
are known to always chase after money, taking people off projects and
putting them on others - so nobody in their right mind would consider
awarding them a $500m contract.
> pity anyone that would think of taking on the task of re-implementing
> it, not because it's nasty but because it's a *huge* effort.
> While I can't commit development time right at this moment (I'm booked
> up with the PHP project in most of my "free" time), I am happy to help
> in any other way that I can; I researched the implementation of DCOM
> quite heavily back then, so I probably have a better idea than most
> about getting it done.
> PS: I'd *love* to have someone sponsor my employer (omniti.com) to have
> me work on getting this implemented.
> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> >>I already checked out FreeDCE and the newly released DCE-RPC several days
> >>ago. Neither provides a DCOM implementation, neither resembles what we
> >>need. We may be able to take some code or ideas from them with some work
> >>to massage it, but there's not much of use there.
> >dear mike,
> >you are correct about DCE 1.2.2 not containing DCOM: it is
> >FreeDCE that does.
> >other than that - with all due respect, and if i understand
> >you correctly: you are wrong [or looking in the wrong place]
> >e see this:
> > http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/freedce/freedce/dcom/dcom.h?rev=1.1&view=markup
> >which has been available for just over four years, now.
> >are you _seriously_ intending to reimplement the DCE/RPC IDL
> >compiler - because that's what's required!!!
> >DCOM is DCE/RPC underneath: DCOM even has the uuids and
> >transports of DCE/RPC. DCOM is just a c++ wrapper on top of
> >some underlying c APIs, and from what i can gather, you "up"
> >the revision numbers of the interfaces, which DCE/RPC can even
> >do for you.
> >perhaps i should put you in touch with wez furlong who did
> >the original FreeDCE DCOM work.
> >you _cannot_ be serious about reinventing the 250,000 lines
> >of c code required to properly support DCE/RPC which is a
> >prerequisite for supporting DCOM.
> >i can understand the samba team doing that, but _another_
> >project doing it???
> >please tell me i am wrong in believing that you are giving
> >serious consideration to a _third_ DCE/RPC runtime and
> >development environment, to compete with samba 4's GPL'd
> >implementation which is in development and with FreeDCE's
> >complete reference implementation which is available under an
> >OSF 1.0 BSD-like license.
More information about the wine-devel