Re: [ros-dev] Arwinss architecture

[Aleksey Bragin]

On Jul 30, 2009, at 12:49 AM, James Tabor wrote:

>   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:
> >   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. 
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).


> >   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 
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.