30 Jul
2009
30 Jul
'09
2:45 p.m.
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 3:25 AM, Aleksey Bragin<aleksey(a)reactos.org> 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.
Paint is already drying, if you haven't noticed.
On Jul 30, 2009, at 12:49 AM, James Tabor wrote:
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 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 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