Pardon my trolling again..

Richard wrote:
> A big question is: Do we want to create yet another
> API. It would seem possible to port existing Windows
> code if the Windows API were made available as a
> (possibly) thin wrapper on top of the DCERPC client
> library


It depends, I suppose, on how much of your Windows
code you want to leave as-is. I've advocated exposing
a named pipe API, because Wine should be able to layer
RPC on top of this. The RPC code becomes redundant
(between Wine and Samba), but Wine needs RPC anyway,
and it needs to expose the Windows API to it. The
latter requirement implies that layering Wine's RPC on
Samba's might in fact be more difficult than just
using named pipes.

I think Andrew Bartlett chatted about this with
Alexandre Julliard, so he might have some different
ideas.

--Juan



_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com