Hi, On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 3:25 AM, Aleksey Bragin<alek...@reactos.org> wrote: > > On Jul 30, 2009, at 12:49 AM, James Tabor wrote: > >> If I'm not mistaken, we already imported wine code at the beginning >> did we not? I'm looking at the commit logs and it does look we >> started with wine. We need to keep it separated before it is too late. >> Oh it's already too late. Ah, we missed that one. >> >> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Ged<gedmur...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Current win32 subsystem progress is too slow. We need something >>> now before >>> it's too late. >>> One of the main things that's holing us back and stopping new devs >>> from >>> getting involved is out lack of compatibility and stability. >>> >> Good reason to keep it separated. > That's what being suggested. However Alex said a different opinion, > that the rewrite could happen in-place. But apriori that takes more > effort, because one needs to take into account compatibility, prevent > breakages (Jim knows how hard it is). > > LOL, which Alex, the one I know, knows the rewrite already started back in 2006. Yes I know about breakage, and I wish someone will bring up the fact about the whole rewrite work I started and how it moved the project past a level of a hacky POS. Including the other developers that had time to KILL working on win32k. I guess in this instance we can not complain about coding styles or bad grammar.
>>> If we have a drop in replacement which is much more compatible and >>> stable >>> then the current one, then I think it's wise to use that whilst >>> the real >>> implementation is continued alongside. >>> >>> Surely this will give you the freedom to get architecture done >>> without >>> worrying about breaking things? >>> >>> Ged. >>> >> Read all of my previous emails, so I do not have to paint this >> again.... >> James > > Though still I don't see what a "proper" win32 subsystem architecture > means. I know the crystal clear, well thought through, not changed > much over years design of an NT kernel. But with win32 subsystem, > there is no such crystal clearness. > Paint is already drying, if you haven't noticed. > Timo, James - please, tell me your opinions about that. So far, the > only "proper" things from a real win32 subsystem are the win32k > syscall interface (ros still uses its own variant of it, with similar > function names, but different parameters, etc - but that's what being > fixed) and internal structures documented by Timo (great work indeed). > It's fine so far, but having NT API and NDK is not all what's needed > to build a good and proper kernel. There is something called internal > architecture. What do we have of a proper internal architecture in > gdi32, user32 and win32k.sys now in trunk? > > P.S. no flamewars please, those are fully valid question, fully > serious, and no offence to anyone is intended. > > > WBR, > Aleksey Bragin. I'm to busy working on real problems right now to sit here a write a book for you when you should have been reading all the commit logs in the first place. FYI, I'm fixing windowing class issues, if you did not notice..... Small fixes have been known to fix big problems. Read the logs. In away, I'm still a part time body builder, but now days it's for heath reasons. If you start lifting heavy weights with arms and legs first with out building up your back, what is going to happen when you start deadlifting? You are going to blow your back out! Stay out of ReactOS! Go ahead and work on ArWinSS, James _______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
