A step in the wrong direction, in an ocean of steps in the right direction (try 3)

[Guillaume SH]

Hi Dimitry,

Thank you very much for bringing this explanation to my knowledge.

As you name came over and over through wine-devel list, I am aware
that you are an experimented and influential member within wine
community (which make a huge difference with me, as this is the first
time I try to bring a contribution to wine(1) ), so I will consider
this explanation as the way most involved wine people are considering
things up.

The most interesting part in your answer is indeed this word of
"Behaviour" you used. Indeed, in my understanding (but maybe "I am
hoping" is more correct here) wine's goal is to provide the same
functionalities as Windows API, not to implement those functionalities
C statement for C statement with respect to Window's ones.

Two reason comes to my mind :
1 - Just copycatting Windows implementation would brought wine very
close to plagiarism, thus legally threaten is mere existence
2 - Obviously, Windows implementation is not always the most efficient
nor the most secure, due to commercial stakes (release schedule,
financial arbitrations...)

Regarding the part of your mail where you wrote : "that's actually
good that applications crash when
they pass invalid data", I must admit I don't understand your point at
all. It seems to me a dogma, not the result of some thought or stand
back.
Don't misunderstand me here, I'm not insulting you neither I'm not
saying that I am better than you nor I'm not trying to start a flaming
thread. I respect the assertion you stated, but honestly and deeply
fail to understand why is it correct.


Guillaume

(1) Talking openly and honestly about a subject that may be considered
a problem is a way of contributing, less concrete than patches, but
real too.