21 Nov
2004
21 Nov
'04
1:36 a.m.
Jonathan Wilson wrote:
Steven Edwards wrote:
We will do as planned and put undocumented stuff in the NDK
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
--- Jonathan Wilson <jonwil(a)tpgi.com.au>
wrote:
Most of what is in the WINE headers is the stuff that is in the
"platform SDK" and then "the undocumented stuff".
Keeping the "undocumented" stuff (i.e. the bits microsoft doesnt
document in the Platform SDK) and the "documented" stuff seperate
(i.e. putting the undocumented stuff into seperate headers) is a good
idea IMO. (e.g. have a "userundoc.h" for the undocumented stuff or
whatever)
And if we are doing that, we can (if people will re-licence)
contribute the documented stuff (all of which is in the MS platform
SDK or the DDK) back to w32api itself to make w32api into something
that gets 1 step closer to the Platform SDK/DDK (IMO thats what w32api
should be aiming at, a clone of anything in the microsoft Platform SDK
that someone wants to cleanroom clone and also anything in the DDK
that anyone wants to cleanroom clone)
Anyone else think that keeping the undocumented stuff seperate from
the regular documented stuff is a good idea? bad idea?
Are we going to actually get permission to
re-licence then submit all
the w23api changes back to w32api?
Unless its its on MSDN or something thats undocumented that you can
find via a simple google search then the w32api people will not accept
it. As far as I care we should just maintain our own SDK based on the
Wine headers, The DDK based on the Mingw DDK and our own NDK for the
undocumented stuff.