On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 09:22:42AM -0800, Alexandre Julliard wrote: > Andreas Mohr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > In fact I raised my eyebrows on that statement of him, too. > > > > There's probably a lot of NT object stuff that's not 150% implemented yet, > > I think. > > And if the wineserver protocol isn't independent from such changes > > (I dunno about that), then it certainly can't be considered truly "stable". > > The point is not to freeze the protocol completely, it will clearly > continue to evolve even after 1.0. The idea is that once the protocol > is declared frozen all future changes are done in a way that preserves > backwards compatibility. And the mechanisms to do that are mostly in > place now, which is what I mean by saying it is finished. OK, so in other words the wineserver *is* more or less "independent from such changes".
That's nice to know :) -- Andreas Mohr Stauferstr. 6, D-71272 Renningen, Germany Tel. +49 7159 800604 http://home.nexgo.de/andi.mohr/
