31 Jan
2006
31 Jan
'06
7:31 p.m.
Steven Edwards wrote:
On 1/31/06, Alex Ionescu <ionucu(a)videotron.ca>
wrote:
You are still not being clear. Those sources document generic
architecture, not direct APIs. If you implement it, then you need to
implement undocumented APIs/entire modules which nobody will use.
Well you're contradicting
yourself..."When there is documentation
describing the way Windows does something then we should follow it" then
you say "If an API is not used by application then we should not
implement it because it does not help the goal of the project".
SMSS/CSRSS are documented and described in general...however not
implementing them at all does not change the fact that Office and MSN
Messenger will run. No application/driver depends on them...
You guys better decide, you seem kind of confused...are you going to
create a working model of NT based on architectural information (and
that includes, OSR, PDBs, MSDN, DDKs, NTDEV/NTIFS Mailing Lists, Windows
Internals, Probert, etc) or are you going to create some half-assed OS
that runs every app the users want?
It either must 1. Be documented or 2. Have a third party application
that depends on certain functionality. If MSDN, OSR, NTDEV Windows
Internels and Probert document it then sure we can implement it.
I no
longer view the PDBs as a valid clean room source.
I guess Microsoft won then, without even having to contact us. Will the
DDK/IFS be considered dirty too, soon? You know, I've talked to some
driver developers out there and people involved in NT kernel
development, and they've been laughing out loud at this... good luck
ever trying to achieve more then 0.1% driver support with this mentality.
--
Steven Edwards - ReactOS and Wine developer
"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and
that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu