30 Jul
2009
30 Jul
'09
12:51 p.m.
Arwinss resembles the NT3/Vista/7 architecture for Win32k, while the
implementation that some people are saying is "right" is more in line with
the NT4-WinXP. In the strictest sense of the definition, both arwinss and
the current default implementation styles are "correct." Both
implementations work and allow Windows NT drivers to work with it, so that's
not the problem. It also adds in RDP-esque support through X, which is
pretty cool too.
I guess some of these people don't like Wine code. The problem with that is
that without Wine code, ReactOS would probably take ten times as long to
actually get to a usable state. Using Wine code for win32k seems to cross
some sort of line for them. I heard some of them saying the Wine code for
win32k is "ugly." What does ugliness have to do with it? Being able to share
more with Wine saves a lot of hard work from ReactOS devs. They can focus
more on bringing the NT kernel up to scratch, rather than spending more time
with the Win32k code. They could even work on adding in other subsystems, if
they wanted to.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 3:25 AM, Aleksey Bragin <aleksey(a)reactos.org> wrote:
On Jul 30, 2009, at 12:49 AM, James Tabor wrote:
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.
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.
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
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<gedmurphy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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).
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. 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