Re: [1/4] mshtml: Ignore IActiveScript interface for IXMLHTTPRequest (resend)
On 2/14/11 10:03 AM, Alistair Leslie-Hughes wrote:
Changelog: mshtml: Ignore IActiveScript interface for IXMLHTTPRequest
mshtml? + else if ( IsEqualGUID( riid,&IID_IActiveScript)) + { + TRACE("(%p)->(IID_IActiveScript %p) returning NULL\n", This, ppvObject); + *ppvObject = NULL; + return E_NOINTERFACE; + } else { FIXME("Unsupported interface %s\n", debugstr_guid(riid)); As discussed on wine-devel, please just change the later FIXME to TRACE instead. Jacek
Hi Jacek, On 14/02/2011 9:48 PM, Jacek Caban wrote:
On 2/14/11 10:03 AM, Alistair Leslie-Hughes wrote:
Changelog: mshtml: Ignore IActiveScript interface for IXMLHTTPRequest
mshtml?
+ else if ( IsEqualGUID( riid,&IID_IActiveScript)) + { + TRACE("(%p)->(IID_IActiveScript %p) returning NULL\n", This, ppvObject); + *ppvObject = NULL; + return E_NOINTERFACE; + } else { FIXME("Unsupported interface %s\n", debugstr_guid(riid));
As discussed on wine-devel, please just change the later FIXME to TRACE instead.
By just changing the FIXME to a TRACE would hide this fact that IObjectWithSite and IObjectSafety need to be implemented at some point. Only with msxml tracing would be see this fact, which would lead to hard to pin point errors. We need to just ignore two know interfaces IActiveScript and IDispatchEx. If we are going to stop silencing interfaces, Should be just remove the ones already in webbrowser(shdocvw)? No, We do this so other developers can see that these interfaces are not supported and so they don't need to waste there time researching them. We silence interfaces like the above in other places, so why no here? Best Regards Alistair Leslie-Hughes
On 2/15/11 9:26 AM, Alistair Leslie-Hughes wrote:
Hi Jacek,
On 14/02/2011 9:48 PM, Jacek Caban wrote:
On 2/14/11 10:03 AM, Alistair Leslie-Hughes wrote:
Changelog: mshtml: Ignore IActiveScript interface for IXMLHTTPRequest
mshtml?
+ else if ( IsEqualGUID( riid,&IID_IActiveScript)) + { + TRACE("(%p)->(IID_IActiveScript %p) returning NULL\n", This, ppvObject); + *ppvObject = NULL; + return E_NOINTERFACE; + } else { FIXME("Unsupported interface %s\n", debugstr_guid(riid));
As discussed on wine-devel, please just change the later FIXME to TRACE instead.
By just changing the FIXME to a TRACE would hide this fact that IObjectWithSite and IObjectSafety need to be implemented at some point. Only with msxml tracing would be see this fact, which would lead to hard to pin point errors.
We need to just ignore two know interfaces IActiveScript and IDispatchEx.
Not really. For example, you will find need for silencing IID_IDispatchJS pseudo-interface and its native jscript equivalent once it will be actually usefull for scripts. These are not interfaces apps query for and they are trivial to find once you know you're dealing with scripting. And please don't tell me that expecting enabling tracing for debugged DLL is something making debugging hard.
If we are going to stop silencing interfaces, Should be just remove the ones already in webbrowser(shdocvw)? No, We do this so other developers can see that these interfaces are not supported and so they don't need to waste there time researching them. We silence interfaces like the above in other places, so why no here?
Each case is different and you need to consider what having this FIXME is gaining us. XMLHTTPRequest object has one interfaces interesting for apps and some more needed by stuff like scripting or security manager that are easy to find missing and obvious to expect. Objects like WebBrowser control have tons of interfaces that app may query for and in its case, the FIXME has proven to be useful. Jacek
Hi Jacek, -------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacek Caban" <jacek(a)codeweavers.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 8:44 PM To: "Alistair Leslie-Hughes" <leslie_alistair(a)hotmail.com> Cc: "Wine Devel" <wine-devel(a)winehq.org> Subject: Re: [1/4] mshtml: Ignore IActiveScript interface for IXMLHTTPRequest (resend)
We need to just ignore two know interfaces IActiveScript and IDispatchEx.
Not really. For example, you will find need for silencing IID_IDispatchJS pseudo-interface and its native jscript equivalent once it will be actually usefull for scripts. These are not interfaces apps query for and they are trivial to find once you know you're dealing with scripting. And please don't tell me that expecting enabling tracing for debugged DLL is something making debugging hard. No debugging isn't that hard. I was testing with a web page and these interfaces are repeated in the trace a lot, and it's easier to deal with a name instead of a GUID.
If we are going to stop silencing interfaces, Should be just remove the ones already in webbrowser(shdocvw)? No, We do this so other developers can see that these interfaces are not supported and so they don't need to waste there time researching them. We silence interfaces like the above in other places, so why no here?
Each case is different and you need to consider what having this FIXME is gaining us. XMLHTTPRequest object has one interfaces interesting for apps and some more needed by stuff like scripting or security manager that are easy to find missing and obvious to expect. Objects like WebBrowser control have tons of interfaces that app may query for and in its case, the FIXME has proven to be useful.
I've sent a patch that lists the known noisy interfaces, and changes the FIXME to a WARN. Best Regards Alistair Leslie-Hughes
participants (2)
-
Alistair Leslie-Hughes -
Jacek Caban