Tom Spear speeddymon at gmail.com
Tue Apr 25 13:05:15 CDT 2006

On 4/25/06, Paul Millar <paul at astro.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> Yes, this looks to be amenable to a clean-room implementation.
> This could involve two students: one activity would be to write a document
> describing the API and write a suite of functional tests that "define"
> correct behaviour of the API; the other activity would be to use the
> document
> and functional test-suite to implement a version of the asio dll for wine.
> Would this be an appropriate SoC project?  I speak as someone who's got a
> mate
> who (independently) came up with much the same idea and this might allow
> both
> to contribute.
> Cheers,
> Paul.

I don't see any reason why that couldn't work.  We could combine that test
suite with users that use various pro-audio apps tests of said apps.  For
example, some users prefer fruity loops over soundforge or acid, but we can
test all 3 against the implementation, modify (or initially write) the tests
to do the same things as these apps, and then build the implementation based
on the tests..

Not to go off topic, but that might be a good method (now that I think about
it) to find out what various other apps do.. Sure it is the same as making a
testcase, but in this case, we are working backwards, which might speed up
patch production in some cases

If I am reading what you said above, you basically want to for example, take
fruity loops, figure out what it does when you do various things (by tracing
that app's execution), then using that trace, write our own code to produce
an _identical_ trace, and then use that code to make patches to other areas
of wine..

Am I off the mark here?  If not that really could help out our release
cycle, and increase the number of bugs fixed per release.....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/attachments/20060425/b55d985e/attachment.htm

More information about the wine-devel mailing list