31 Jan
2006
31 Jan
'06
10 a.m.
Casper Hornstrup wrote:
"If an API or a particular behaviour of an API
which is part of the
Windows(R) operating system is not publicly documented by
Microsoft, then
the API or the particular behaviour of the API may only be
implemented in
ReactOS if there is documentation of published software which
depend on the
API or the particular behaviour of the API, and which is not only
distributed with the Windows(R) operating system. The
documentation must be
available in the repository."
What if a particular API is required for a particular program to work, but
that API is undocumented by both Microsoft and the owner of the said
program?
Also, what about using code from 3rd parties which might contain
undocumented API's, like Wine for instance?
Ged.
************************************************************************
The information contained in this message or any of its
attachments is confidential and is intended for the exclusive
use of the addressee. The information may also be legally
privileged. The views expressed may not be company policy,
but the personal views of the originator. If you are not the
addressee, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other
dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please contact
postmaster(a)exideuk.co.uk
<mailto:postmaster@exideuk.co.uk> and then delete this message.
Exide Technologies is an industrial and transportation battery
producer and recycler with operations in 89 countries.
Further information can be found at www.exide.com
31 Jan
31 Jan
11:08 a.m.
New subject: Undocumented APIs
-----Original Message-----
From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org] On
Behalf Of Murphy, Ged (Bolton)
Sent: 31. januar 2006 11:00
To: 'ReactOS Development List'
Subject: RE: [ros-dev] Undocumented APIs
What if a particular API is required for a particular program to work, but
that API is undocumented by both Microsoft and the owner of the said
program?
We don't need documentation from the author of the software that needs the
API. We just need to document that the software needs the API.
Also, what about using code from 3rd parties which might contain
undocumented API's, like Wine for instance?
Wine has a similar policy, but in general we should try to fix issues
upstream. If we can't do that, then so be it. Forking source code isn't
usually worth it.
Casper
11:19 a.m.
New subject: Undocumented APIs
Casper Hornstrup wrote:
Wine has a similar policy, but in general we should
try to fix issues
upstream. If we can't do that, then so be it. Forking source code isn't
usually worth it.
The problem I see is that wine has a lot less undocumented stuff by
definition. They don't need to implement the lower levels that we do
need. Unfortunately those lower levels are much less thoroughly
documented, but IMO we should at least get the publicly known interfaces
right. I'm not talking about internal things.
- Thomas
11:34 a.m.
New subject: Undocumented APIs
-----Original Message-----
From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org] On
Behalf Of Thomas Weidenmueller
Sent: 31. januar 2006 12:20
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Undocumented APIs
Casper Hornstrup wrote:
Why implement something which is not used? From a survival POV, ReactOS is
better off doing what is needed instead of doing what is not needed.
Casper
Wine has a similar policy, but in general we
should try to fix issues
upstream. If we can't do that, then so be it. Forking source code isn't
usually worth it.
The problem I see is that wine has a lot less undocumented stuff by
definition. They don't need to implement the lower levels that we do
need. Unfortunately those lower levels are much less thoroughly
documented, but IMO we should at least get the publicly known interfaces
right. I'm not talking about internal things.
- Thomas
12:11 p.m.
New subject: Undocumented APIs
Casper Hornstrup wrote:
Why implement something which is not used? From a
survival POV, ReactOS is
better off doing what is needed instead of doing what is not needed.
Good luck. From a survival POV, we shouldn't even implement anything not
documented publicly. Okay, then let's reinvent a native api to the
kernel. If it turns out an application or driver really depends one one
we're in deep sh... Not that I cared.
- Thomas
12:33 p.m.
New subject: Undocumented APIs
-----Original Message-----
From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org] On
Behalf Of Thomas Weidenmueller
Sent: 31. januar 2006 13:12
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Undocumented APIs
Casper Hornstrup wrote:
If you define deep sh... as having a reason to implement it, then yes.
Casper
Why implement something which is not used? From a
survival POV, ReactOS
is
better off doing what is needed instead of doing
what is not needed.
Good luck. From a survival POV, we shouldn't even implement anything not
documented publicly. Okay, then let's reinvent a native api to the
kernel. If it turns out an application or driver really depends one one
we're in deep sh... Not that I cared.
- Thomas 
1:23 p.m.
New subject: Undocumented APIs
On Tuesday 31 January 2006 07:33, Casper Hornstrup wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org] On
> Behalf Of Thomas Weidenmueller
> Sent: 31. januar 2006 13:12
> To: ReactOS Development List
> Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Undocumented APIs
>
> Casper Hornstrup wrote:
> > Why implement something which is not used? From a survival POV, ReactOS
>
> is
>
> > better off doing what is needed instead of doing what is not needed.
>
> Good luck. From a survival POV, we shouldn't even implement anything not
> documented publicly. Okay, then let's reinvent a native api to the
> kernel. If it turns out an application or driver really depends one one
> we're in deep sh... Not that I cared.
According to the legal repercussions that came about from the first MS//US DOJ
lawsuit there are to be _no_ undocumented function calls within the Microsoft
operating systems. If you are worried about function calls from the older
windows releases, I believe there is enough documentation out there to
implement those without requiring reverse engineering.
For the rest, if MS hasn't documented a function it is using then they should
be in deep sh.. over that. IANAL, but IIRC, the first lawsuit against them
covered undocumented functions and stated that MS could not have them as it
was a monopolistic move. By that it meant that MS was not giving other
companies a fair chance to compete, so all functions had to be documented.
There may be hundreds or even thousands of structures with undocumented
members, but, personally, it might be good to do something like fix the value
of those members to known values - either by writing a program to dump those
values or just by picking a number at random. At some point the use of those
values should become clear and proper values can then begin to be inserted by
the code, as well as having a proper name given to the member.
Someone mentioned that regedit might be a piece of code which is the only one
to use a function call... All modern windows releases ship with two versions
of regedit, regedit.exe and regedt32.exe - and there have been several
third-party replacements for regedit released. If possible it might be best
for ReactOS to ship with one of the free third-party regedit's - this would
save development time and the author of said tool might have information on
undocumented API's.
When I've finished my other projects (one of which I'm hoping to have
functioning in ReactOS) and have more time free I'll start trolling bugzilla
and offering my help in keeping the bugs there cleaned up...
D. Hazelton
1:43 p.m.
New subject: Undocumented APIs
According to the legal repercussions that came about
from the first MS//US DOJ
lawsuit there are to be _no_ undocumented function calls within the Microsoft
operating systems. If you are worried about function calls from the older
There
are MANY function calls inside even the most basic low-level
libraries for which no documentation exists.
For example, in user32.dll is the function RegisterUserAPIHooks. That is
totally undocumented.
That is just one example.
However, it is one of the many undocumented functions that only exist to
allow components of windows to talk to each other (in this case it exists
only to allow uxtheme/comctl32 to hook user32 and do non-client-area themeing).
The question is, do we implement such functions?
2:35 p.m.
New subject: Undocumented APIs
For example, in user32.dll is the function
RegisterUserAPIHooks. That is
totally undocumented.
However, it is one of the many undocumented functions that only exist to
allow components of windows to talk to each other (in this case it exists
only to allow uxtheme/comctl32 to hook user32 and do
non-client-area themeing).
The question is, do we implement such functions?
Well... If it is exported by the DLL then it should be exported. But if it
is undocumented I don't think it should be implemented until an application
is found which uses it. Not having a RegisterUserAPIHooks implementation
doesn't make ReactOS run less windows programs. I would suggest something
like introducing a "UNDOCUMENTED;" macro (like the UNIMPLEMENTED; macro) to
track down used undocumented functions...
Sebastiaan
2:25 p.m.
New subject: Undocumented APIs
Thomas Weidenmueller wrote:
Casper Hornstrup wrote:
If you think a driver or application will depend on something then you
can write a test program/driver and include it in the ReactOS tree. That
would seem to satisfy the requirements. Black box testing is also
"cleaner" (and usually faster) than clean-room reverse engineering.
--
Rob Shearman
Why implement something which is not used? From a
survival POV, ReactOS is
better off doing what is needed instead of doing what is not needed.
Good luck. From a survival POV, we shouldn't even implement anything not
documented publicly. Okay, then let's reinvent a native api to the
kernel. If it turns out an application or driver really depends one one
we're in deep sh... Not that I cared.
3:30 p.m.
New subject: Undocumented APIs
Robert Shearman wrote:
If you think a driver or application will depend on
something then you
can write a test program/driver and include it in the ReactOS tree. That
would seem to satisfy the requirements. Black box testing is also
"cleaner" (and usually faster) than clean-room reverse engineering.
I'm perfectly ok with that. I don't have problems providing tests for
the stuff I implement(ed).
I may have missed parts of the discussions because I'm a bit short on
time, so I apologize. It just seemed that unless a 3rd party application
exists it could never be OK to implement something (more or less)
undocumented.
- Thomas
3:40 p.m.
New subject: Undocumented APIs
Thomas Weidenmueller wrote:
I may have missed parts of the discussions because
I'm a bit short on
time, so I apologize. It just seemed that unless a 3rd party application
exists it could never be OK to implement something (more or less)
undocumented.
Perhaps this is silly or an oversimplification, but if we can't find a
program that uses an undocumented API, then what's the point in
implementing it? After all, if you're able to get ReactOS to run every
app you care about, then haven't we succeeded?
3:51 p.m.
New subject: Undocumented APIs
Royce Mitchell III wrote:
Perhaps this is silly or an oversimplification, but if
we can't find a
program that uses an undocumented API, then what's the point in
implementing it? After all, if you're able to get ReactOS to run every
app you care about, then haven't we succeeded?
I implemented a large number of APIs probably only very few applications
use. I usually did that out of boredom or just for fun. Most of them are
documented but I think the same applies to "undocumented" APIs. It's not
a problem for me to provide test cases but not being allowed to
implement them at all is a bit too much IMO. I understand we have to be
paranoid to a certain extent, but IMO this rather concerns internal
implementations than more or less public interfaces. It's something I
didn't like WINE for. I found it quite odd having to find a "real-world"
application that depends on something, and not even a test application
would be sufficient to justify a change or implementation.
- Thomas
4:17 p.m.
New subject: Undocumented APIs
-----Original Message-----
From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org] On
Behalf Of Thomas Weidenmueller
Sent: 31. januar 2006 16:52
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Undocumented APIs
I implemented a large number of APIs probably only very few applications
use. I usually did that out of boredom or just for fun.
- Thomas
Which is of course fine, but since ReactOS has no use for it, why commit it?
It isn't needed to meet the goals of ReactOS.
Casper
4:50 p.m.
New subject: Undocumented APIs
Casper Hornstrup wrote:
Which is of course fine, but since ReactOS has no use
for it, why commit it?
It isn't needed to meet the goals of ReactOS.
Of cours it's not needed to meet the goals. Not everything contributed
was essential to meet the goals. Many tools aren't really necessary but
they exist because someone thought it might be a good idea to have them.
What was I supposed to do? Trash the patches? Call that a waste of efforts.
- Thomas
5:41 p.m.
New subject: Undocumented APIs
Hi,
On 1/31/06, Thomas Weidenmueller <w3seek(a)reactos.com> wrote:
Of cours it's not needed to meet the goals. Not
everything contributed
was essential to meet the goals. Many tools aren't really necessary but
they exist because someone thought it might be a good idea to have them.
What was I supposed to do? Trash the patches? Call that a waste of efforts.
I think that if you want to implement a new api just for fun you
should be free do so however I 100% agree with Caspers point of view.
I hightly doubt your implementing a new API without any documentation
on MSDN or somewhere on the net even if you can't find a 3rd party
application so just quote your source for the API in the documentation
tree and that should be good enough.
--
Steven Edwards - ReactOS and Wine developer
"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and
that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo
6:35 p.m.
New subject: Undocumented APIs
Steven Edwards wrote:
I think that if you want to implement a new api just
for fun you
should be free do so however I 100% agree with Caspers point of view.
I hightly doubt your implementing a new API without any documentation
on MSDN or somewhere on the net even if you can't find a 3rd party
application so just quote your source for the API in the documentation
tree and that should be good enough.
I understand that. However, I only implemented documented Vista APIs.
Pretty much all of them are already documented in the Platform SDK, a
few are documented in some PDC presentations. Of course there's no real
world application that already uses them because the OS isn't even released.
The point is their implementation in most cases is based on the (mostly)
officially undocumented native API. But since wine also starts
implementing them I guess it's OK, although only very few applications
might use them.
- Thomas
6:50 p.m.
New subject: Undocumented APIs
-----Original Message-----
From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org] On
Behalf Of Thomas Weidenmueller
Sent: 31. januar 2006 19:36
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Undocumented APIs
Steven Edwards wrote:
Then the APIs are "publicly documented by Microsoft" and I don't see the
relevance of using them as an argument in this thread.
Casper
I think that if you want to implement a new api
just for fun you
should be free do so however I 100% agree with Caspers point of view.
I hightly doubt your implementing a new API without any documentation
on MSDN or somewhere on the net even if you can't find a 3rd party
application so just quote your source for the API in the documentation
tree and that should be good enough.
I understand that. However, I only implemented documented Vista APIs.
Pretty much all of them are already documented in the Platform SDK, a
few are documented in some PDC presentations. Of course there's no real
world application that already uses them because the OS isn't even
released. 
10:01 p.m.
New subject: Undocumented APIs
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:17:30 +0100
"Casper Hornstrup" <ch(a)eudicon.com> wrote:
I don't agree with this sentiment at all. We've always before been proactive
about implementing at least visible parts of the API to make it more likely
that applications we didn't know about would have a chance to work. I think
that's a reasonable way to work, especially if you're working in an area
you've
got a good understanding of.
--
Here's a simple experiment. Stand on a train track between two
locomotives which are pushing on you with equal force in opposite
directions. You will exhibit no net motion. None the less, you may
soon begin to notice that something important is happening.
-- Robert Stirniman
-----Original Message-----
From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org] On
Behalf Of Thomas Weidenmueller
Sent: 31. januar 2006 16:52
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Undocumented APIs
I implemented a large number of APIs probably only very few applications
use. I usually did that out of boredom or just for fun.
- Thomas
Which is of course fine, but since ReactOS has no use for it, why commit it?
It isn't needed to meet the goals of ReactOS.
Casper 
10:03 p.m.
New subject: Undocumented APIs
art yerkes wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:17:30 +0100
"Casper Hornstrup" <ch(a)eudicon.com> wrote:
I don't agree with this sentiment at all. We've always before been proactive
about implementing at least visible parts of the API to make it more likely
that applications we didn't know about would have a chance to work. I think
that's a reasonable way to work, especially if you're working in an area
you've
got a good understanding of.
I agree with arty! I'm sick and tired about this anti-Reactos points of view!
It's
obvious now, we have some developers not interested in making Reactos work with other
applications.
Exception just the bootsectors, but I'm not starting until I see the modified IP
policy
-----Original Message-----
From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org] On
Behalf Of Thomas Weidenmueller
Sent: 31. januar 2006 16:52
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Undocumented APIs
I implemented a large number of APIs probably only very few applications
use. I usually did that out of boredom or just for fun.
- Thomas
Which is of course fine, but since ReactOS has no use for it, why commit it?
It isn't needed to meet the goals of ReactOS.
Casper
1 Feb
1 Feb
8:59 a.m.
New subject: Undocumented APIs
James Tabor wrote:
art yerkes wrote:
What's the point in making ReactOS work with all applications if people
are too scared to use it because of the methods used to implement it?
--
Rob Shearman
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:17:30 +0100
"Casper Hornstrup" <ch(a)eudicon.com> wrote:
I don't agree with this sentiment at all. We've always before been
proactive
about implementing at least visible parts of the API to make it more
likely
that applications we didn't know about would have a chance to work.
I think
that's a reasonable way to work, especially if you're working in an
area you've
got a good understanding of.
I agree with arty! I'm sick and tired about this anti-Reactos points
of view! It's
obvious now, we have some developers not interested in making Reactos
work with other
applications.
I implemented a large number of APIs probably only very few
applications
use. I usually did that out of boredom or just for fun.
- Thomas
Which is of course fine, but since ReactOS has no use for it, why
commit it?
It isn't needed to meet the goals of ReactOS.
Casper 
5:21 p.m.
New subject: Undocumented APIs
Robert Shearman wrote:
James Tabor wrote:
I don't see people afraid of using IBM products... or installing
ATI/NVIDIA drivers... or installing Norton Antivirus...actually, quite a
lot of people and big corporations use IBM software on their ATI
videocard, while protected by NAV.
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
art yerkes wrote:
What's the point in making ReactOS work with all applications if
people are too scared to use it because of the methods used to
implement it?
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:17:30 +0100
"Casper Hornstrup" <ch(a)eudicon.com> wrote:
I agree with arty! I'm sick and tired about this anti-Reactos points
of view! It's
obvious now, we have some developers not interested in making Reactos
work with other
applications. >
> I implemented a large number of APIs probably only very few
> applications
> use. I usually did that out of boredom or just for fun.
>
> - Thomas
Which is of course fine, but since ReactOS has no use for it, why
commit it?
It isn't needed to meet the goals of ReactOS.
Casper
I don't agree with this sentiment at all. We've always before been
proactive
about implementing at least visible parts of the API to make it more
likely
that applications we didn't know about would have a chance to work.
I think
that's a reasonable way to work, especially if you're working in an
area you've
got a good understanding of.
6:28 p.m.
New subject: Undocumented APIs
On 2/1/06, Alex Ionescu <ionucu(a)videotron.ca> wrote:
Those corporations have the money to defend the customers in the event
of a SCO type lawsuit. Remember SCO sued Delmar-Chrysler and Autozone
for migrating to Linux from Sco OpenServer. The autozone deal was a
Redhat customer. I assure you any code they write for the Linux kernel
fails under our proposed standard for clean-room reverse enginering if
they did get any ideas from Unix.
--
Steven Edwards - ReactOS and Wine developer
"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and
that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo
What's the
point in making ReactOS work with all applications if
people are too scared to use it because of the methods used to
implement it?
I don't see people afraid of using IBM products... or installing
ATI/NVIDIA drivers... or installing Norton Antivirus...actually, quite a
lot of people and big corporations use IBM software on their ATI
videocard, while protected by NAV. 
12:04 a.m.
New subject: Undocumented APIs
art yerkes wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:17:30 +0100
"Casper Hornstrup" <ch(a)eudicon.com> wrote:
I don't agree with this sentiment at all. We've always before been proactive
about implementing at least visible parts of the API to make it more likely
that applications we didn't know about would have a chance to work. I think
that's a reasonable way to work, especially if you're working in an area
you've
got a good understanding of.
++
Brandon
-----Original Message-----
From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org] On
Behalf Of Thomas Weidenmueller
Sent: 31. januar 2006 16:52
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Undocumented APIs
I implemented a large number of APIs probably only very few applications
use. I usually did that out of boredom or just for fun.
- Thomas
Which is of course fine, but since ReactOS has no use for it, why commit it?
It isn't needed to meet the goals of ReactOS.
Casper
6901
days inactive
6902
days old
23 comments
13 participants
participants (13)
-
Alex Ionescu -
art yerkes -
Brandon Turner -
Casper Hornstrup -
D. Hazelton -
James Tabor -
Jonathan Wilson -
Murphy, Ged (Bolton) -
Robert Shearman -
Royce Mitchell III -
Sebastiaan Roodenburg -
Steven Edwards -
Thomas Weidenmueller