On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Greg Turner wrote: > On Friday 01 November 2002 10:21 am, Alexandre Julliard wrote: > > Greg Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > This guy needs a name if I'm ever going to start coding it. How > > > about: Wine Remote Procedure Call System Server aka wrpcss.exe.so? > > > A little misleading with the "ss" thing, but this name will look > > > familiar to windows users, and is more accurate than my previous > > > idea of wine-epmap, since it will eventually need to do more than > > > just endpoint mapping. > > > > If it's ever going to be compatible with Windows rpcss.exe then we > > should use the same name. Otherwise winerpcss.exe would probably be > > better to avoid potential name collisions. > > That's a good question... would/should/could our thing ever be > compatible with the windows one?
I think I'd say dunno/maybe/yes. There's no terribly good reason to make it compatible, but I know of no terribly good reason not to either (except for the fact that we don't know exactly how much stuff it does - I think it does RPC/DCOM registrations, DCOM object activation, and probably hosts the Running Object Table). It's probably wisest to make it as compatible as we know how anyway, just in case.