[Bug 14810] WinHttp needs to be implemented

Erich Hoover ehoover at mines.edu
Sun Aug 10 19:30:17 CDT 2008


I am trying to argue that the bug does not warrant closure, wine-devel does
not seem like an appropriate venue for such a discussion.  I am quite
familiar with how much effort goes into properly implementing a full-fledged
library for working with HTTP, I have done it several times in several
languages.  I initiated that bug to serve as a starting point to say "we
need a minimal implementation", which I think was successfully illustrated.
I was not aware that someone was already working on something, otherwise I
would have contacted them in order to get a head start.

Honestly, I believe that this problem illustrates the need for these kind of
bugs - if I had found a bug for WinHttp in bugzilla assigned to Zac then I
could easily contact him.  I do not have time to monitor wine-devel in order
keep track of what everyone is working on so that I can keep from stepping
on people's toes.  Wine is not my full time job, and I think it is
unreasonable to expect people to keep track of this kind of off-the-tree
activity without some sort of database like bugzilla to keep track of who is
doing what.  As I'm sure other people do, I only have time to do work on
Wine when I'm on my vacation.

Erich Hoover
ehoover at mines.edu

On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 5:52 PM, James Hawkins <truiken at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 6:43 PM,  <wine-bugs at winehq.org> wrote:
> > http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14810
> >
> >
> > --- Comment #4 from Erich Hoover <ehoover at mines.edu>  2008-08-10
> 18:43:16 ---
> > This whole DLL has a total of 27 functions, 14 of which are currently
> exposed,
> > and only 1 is "implemented".  I put some work into implementing enough of
> the
> > DLL to get RA3 to authenticate and found that it needs 9 of the functions
> to
> > operate properly.  I think it is reasonable to say that implementing the
> rest
> > of the functions for WinHttp would not be too difficult.  I do not think
> that
> > this particular issue is anywhere close to a broad-spectrum "Win32 API
> needs to
> > be implemented".
> >
>
> Of course it's not the same scale as all of the Win32 API.  It was an
> analogy illustrating why the bug is superfluous.  On the other hand,
> you're vastly underestimating the amount of work needed to properly
> implement winhttp.  You might want to chat with Zac Brown who is
> working on implementing winhttp right now.  Also, please don't post in
> closed bugs.
>
> --
> James Hawkins
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/attachments/20080810/690a69e9/attachment.htm 


More information about the wine-devel mailing list