[PATCH 1/2] include: Add IADsADSystemInfo definition.

[Alexandre Julliard]

Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry at baikal.ru> writes:

> Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry at baikal.ru> wrote:
>
>> Alexandre Julliard <julliard at winehq.org> wrote:
>> 
>> > > +interface IADsADSystemInfo : IDispatch
>> > > +{
>> ...
>> > > +}
>> > > +
>> > > +[
>> > > +    helpstring("AD SystemInfo Object"),
>> > > +    uuid(50b6327f-afd1-11d2-9cb9-0000f87a369e),
>> > > +    threading(both)
>> > > +]
>> > > +coclass ADSystemInfo
>> > > +{
>> > > +    [default] interface IADsADSystemInfo;
>> > > +    interface IDispatch;
>> > > +}
>> > 
>> > Aren't these supposed to be defined inside the activeds typelib instead?
>> 
>> PSDK defines IADsADSystemInfo and ADSystemInfo in iads.h which is
>> a generated header (supposedly from iads.idl, where I put these
>> definitions as well). On the other hand activeds.tlb contains much
>> more interfaces and definitions than iads.h does, so I'd guess that
>> activeds.tlb is generated from an .idl that includes most of active
>> directory related .idl files.
>
> Is there anything else that prevents accepting these two patches?
> Or perhaps add some underscores to typedefs to make the patches
> more appealing? It looks like they are no longer frowned upon
> these days? :)

I still think they should be in the typelib. If you look at the
interface registrations with your second patch they don't match the
Windows ones.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard at winehq.org