[PATCH] ole32: Implement CreateObjrefMoniker().

[Nikolay Sivov]

On 10/13/21 3:13 PM, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> Nikolay Sivov <nsivov at codeweavers.com> wrote:
>
>>> +static const IMonikerVtbl VT_ObjrefMonikerImpl =
>>> +{
>>> +    ObjrefMonikerImpl_QueryInterface,
>>> +    PointerMonikerImpl_AddRef,
>>> +    PointerMonikerImpl_Release,
>>> +    ObjrefMonikerImpl_GetClassID,
>>> +    PointerMonikerImpl_IsDirty,
>>> +    PointerMonikerImpl_Load,
>>> +    ObjrefMonikerImpl_Save,
>>> +    PointerMonikerImpl_GetSizeMax,
>>> +    PointerMonikerImpl_BindToObject,
>>> +    PointerMonikerImpl_BindToStorage,
>>> +    PointerMonikerImpl_Reduce,
>>> +    PointerMonikerImpl_ComposeWith,
>>> +    ObjrefMonikerImpl_Enum,
>>> +    PointerMonikerImpl_IsEqual,
>>> +    PointerMonikerImpl_Hash,
>>> +    PointerMonikerImpl_IsRunning,
>>> +    ObjrefMonikerImpl_GetTimeOfLastChange,
>>> +    PointerMonikerImpl_Inverse,
>>> +    PointerMonikerImpl_CommonPrefixWith,
>>> +    PointerMonikerImpl_RelativePathTo,
>>> +    ObjrefMonikerImpl_GetDisplayName,
>>> +    PointerMonikerImpl_ParseDisplayName,
>>> +    ObjrefMonikerImpl_IsSystemMoniker
>>> +};
>>> +
>> I think separate implementation would be better. According to docs more
>> methods are supposed to differ, like running state handling, or
>> Load()/GetSizeMax().
> Initially I created a fully separate implementation, however after looking
> at the test results I moved to a less intrusive version. I think that once
> a method that differs in behaviour is found it's fairly easy to add another
> standalone implementation.
You already found that it differs, and at least methods mentioned above
will differ as well.

With reused functions traces will be misleading as well.
>
>> It's worth checking if objref moniker keeps a reference to passed
>> pointer at all. Since its purpose is to identify running object RPC-way,
>> I suspect it's not a simple pointer wrapper.
>>
>>> +static PointerMonikerImpl *unsafe_impl_from_IMoniker(IMoniker *iface)
>>> +{
>>> +    if (iface->lpVtbl != &VT_PointerMonikerImpl && iface->lpVtbl != &VT_ObjrefMonikerImpl)
>>> +        return NULL;
>>> +    return CONTAINING_RECORD(iface, PointerMonikerImpl, IMoniker_iface);
>>> +}
>> This implies that IsEqual() could return S_OK for mismatching moniker
>> types, which is not backed by tests, or docs.
> I guess that it could be a follow up patch. I should probably mention that
> this implementation works perfectly for a very large .Net based application.
>
Like I said, it changes the way IsEqual() works.