Questions about using native vs implementing our own

[Robert Shearman]

Tom Spear wrote:
> I decided to try to run Process Explorer today with wine.  When I
> first ran it, I got a dialog about missing a function.  So I looked
> back thru the traces and it was because we were missing acledit.dll..
> So I imported that from my windows xp install, and got the dialog
> again.  Turned out I was also missing netui0.dll, netui1.dll, and
> netui2.dll and those in turn needed netrap.dll and samlib.dll.
>
> I assume SAM is the Security Accounts Manager service, so that last
> dll would go for that and most likely would never be implemented with
> wine.  But, how about the others?  Is doing one of these something
> possibly feasible for a SoC project? I'm sure that there are other
> projects that use these dll's as well, but I dont know of them..
>
> My biggest question is when is it appropriate for us to build our own
> DLL's vs just saying to use native?

netui0.dll, netui1.dll and netui2.dll are completely undocumented and 
export C++ entry points. They are only required because they are 
imported by acledit.dll, as is also samlib.dll. You might want to do a 
little debugging next time to see what modules are importing the DLLs.

The only DLL that is required directly and that needs to be stubbed is 
acledit.dll.

-- 
Rob Shearman