bunglehead at gmail.com
Mon Mar 3 07:28:34 CST 2014
On 3/3/2014 16:32, Akira Nakagawa wrote:
> It was a little hurtful that you have said...
> what did you mean of "dead code"?
I mean that code that your patch adds is not used.
> I've checked Windows itself uses it as public handle.
What does a public handle mean and what did you check exactly?
> My patch is not enough,you say,to be send,then I send after finished
> eventlog functions works.
You shouldn't send everything as one patch either, it needs to be
incremental but without dead parts.
Please CC wine-devel at winehq.org if you want my reply.
> 2014年3月3日月曜日、Nikolay Sivov<bunglehead at gmail.com
> <mailto:bunglehead at gmail.com>> さ んは書きました:
> On 3/2/2014 15:18, 中川祥 wrote:
>> I thought all the HANDLEs are hosted by server.
> I don't think you need event log handles to be handled by server,
> I'd rather had a service handling them.
>> Hence,I did.
>> It need be hosted by server because you need to distinguish one
>> eventlog from the ohter,any way.
> I'm not sure I follow you here.Anyway, you'll need some plan for
> all parts involved (advapi32, logging service, something else?)
> before sending such dead code patches.
> Please keep wine-devel CC.
>> 2014年3月2日日曜日、Nikolay Sivov<bunglehead at gmail.com
>> On 3/2/2014 14:13, 中川祥 wrote:
>>> Handle for eventlog.
>>> It is different from event.
>>> It's almost same as hfile,but more info needed.
>>> Is it implemented?
>> What event log API are you talking about? Why does this
>> handle have to be maintained by a server?
>>> 2014-03-02 16:19 GMT+09:00 Nikolay Sivov <bunglehead at gmail.com>:
>>> On 3/2/2014 10:44, Akira Nakagawa wrote:
>>> What's that about?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the wine-devel