On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Juan Lang wrote:

> 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.

However, if the Samba library (whatever we call it) exposes the RPC client
library (and handles all the details of named pipes and native RPC over
TCP etc), why would Wine want to re-implement RPC?

Perhaps we should nail down this detail. Having a ready-made customer can
be much more important than hypothetical customers like the supposed
hoards of people who would like to quickly port existing Windows code to
Linux (and, maybe, they want to use Wine anyway).

Richard Sharpe, rsharpe[at]richardsharpe.com, rsharpe[at]samba.org,
sharpe[at]ethereal.com, http://www.richardsharpe.com