Implement directory object in wineserver.

[Vitaliy Margolen]

Tuesday, November 22, 2005, 3:14:15 PM, Robert Shearman wrote:
>>>>+struct object *permanent_obj[25];
>>>>+int permanent_obj_cnt = 0;
>>>This looks a bit ugly to me. Why not just keep track of the individual
>>>objects that need to be kept around in named variables?
>>Because there will be more. Potentially we might have device + symlink
>>for stuff like named pipes, mailslots, serial & paralel ports, etc.
> Yes, and these should be created at startup.
I'm not sure yet. Those I need yes, they will be created at startup. I
don't know if we can create all the "permanent" objects in one place.

>>I didn't want to create one extra variable for each permanent object.
> There should be less than ten objects altogether, so why not? It doesn't
> have a level of complexity that the "permanent object" concept does.
And don't want to go there again pls. I had a long discussion with
Alexandre about permanent objects. The windows' concept was not
acceptable for server.

>>As this is a compromise to what windows does. I tried to keep it as
>>flexible as it can be.
> Granted, but overdesign is as bad as not being flexible enough. Is there
> a need for this array of permanent objects outside of this patch?
What overdesign? These all combined is less then 20% of what native OM
can do. I don't like to fix something for one day, knowing well and good
some one will be back later on to fix it again.

Having a global variable is bad. Having 10x the required amount is
really bad. Why create them for no good reason?