Re: [ros-dev] found it! the "dce porting" header file

[Richard Campbell]

Can we like...vote to ban this dude?  he's getting annoying.

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:

> http://examples.oreilly.de/english_examples/dce/dce_nt/dceport.h.aug95
>
> o joy o joy.
>
> also, i found _this_!!!
>
> 	http://sourceware.org/pthreads-win32/
>
> which is an implementation of pthreads on win32.
>
> _also_ i found - was reminded - by judicious searching on google, that
> of course entegrity.com have "PC-DCE" which is of course a _commercial_
> product that has done exactly the work required: making dce (1.1?
> 1.2.2?) compile on Win32.
>
> including exceptions, dealing with mapping the names, blah blahhh.
>
> now.
>
> anyone got any brainy ideas on how to reverse dceport.h - in particular
> the thingy.  wotsit.  TRY/FINALLY/CATCH stuff?
>
> what i'm going to try to do is take a shot at simply compiling
> dcethreads - on win32.
>
> if that _works_ (the tests pass) it'll be great - it will prove two
> things: 1) that pthreads-win32 works 2) that the dce exception handling
> will fly, on win32, and _that_ means pretty much zero (urk! let's hope!)
> work.
>
> for now.
>
> my main goal: "GetItWorking(tm)".
>
> i couldn't care less about binary compatibility for now: i want
> "services" - i want srvsvcd, i want winregd, i want lsarpcd, i want
> samrd - all compiled, all working, using TCP/IP.
>
> i can then work on rewriting freedce's ntlmsspauth.so to be a DLL
> (starting off as my favourite - a stub with username and password of
> "test").
>
> i can then work on writing an "ncalrpc" plugin transport (which is very
> straightforward: a matter of filling in about 25 functions in a vector
> table).
>
> and also on a ncacn_np plugin transport.
>
>
> "working" means that other people will then be able to focus on issues
> like binary compatibility.
>
> guys (wine team) i have to say this.  you were utterly insane to not use
> freedce as your starting point - and i am still bewildered by you not
> even looking at its source code (which is topologically identical in
> almost all areas, to what you've created) or the opengroup's documentation.
>
> i say that with the greatest of respect for what you've achieved without
> freedce.
>
> l.
>
>   
>