--- Richard Sharpe wrote:
> 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?


It's not so much that Wine wants to re-implement RPC;
it's that it has already, at least to the point where
common applications that depend on it can run. The
RPC is between two Wine processes running against the
same Wine server, so it's not actually remote, but it
gets the job done for now.

> Perhaps we should nail down this detail.


Agreed. Again, assuming Wine continues to use its own
RPC code, the easiest thing would be to be able to use
a file descriptor to read from/write to as our RPC
transport. A named pipe transport would be especially
useful, since that seems to be one of the more common
usages. A TCP transport would be my vote for
runner-up.

I mentioned the idea of exposing a named pipe to user
space from the CIFS module. Steve French was okay
with the idea, but since I haven't had time to work on
it I don't think he's done anything in that way
either.

Again, Andrew chatted with AJ and might be able to
provide a different take.

--Juan



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