[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       wine-devel
Subject:    Re: registry
From:       "Juergen Schmied" <juergen.schmied () debitel ! net>
Date:       1999-12-22 16:51:35
[Download RAW message or body]


> After all, NTDLL can never be replaced by a native version anyway,
> while ADVAPI32 can; the current implementation of VMM calling out
> to ADVAPI32 is therefore problematical anyway.

I already started to implement the ntdll functions using the already 
implemented server calls. 
In this way I can implement the nt functions first without breaking 
the advapi. The we could make the advapi use the ntdll without 
hurry.

It's mostly doing the job but its ugly to convert the returncodes from 
ERROR_* to STATUS_* and the possibly back in the advapi.

Another question is how much do we like to make the server 
supporting ntdll functions. 
Just some examples: having such a thing like the kernel object 
manager with its own object namespace might be nice but is it 
worth the work? 
Do we ever want to let all K32 object related functions go trough 
ntdll? 
Should the server return STATUS_* codes and we are converting it 
back in the caller function ? (see advapi/security.c for a example of 
converting return codes).

Bye

Juergen

---
juergen.schmied@debitel.net

... from sunny Berlin

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]