Hello, Could you please tell me if you consider the unixfs shell namespace extension, which I've sent to wine-patches last week, a sensible way to go in order to access the unix filesystem from winecfg? I know that there is room for improvements, and I'm working on it. But if you think it is not the right thing to do, I will stop working on it and save some time for other stuff. Bye, -- Michael Jung mjung(a)iss.tu-darmstadt.de
Michael Jung <mjung(a)iss.tu-darmstadt.de> writes:
Could you please tell me if you consider the unixfs shell namespace extension, which I've sent to wine-patches last week, a sensible way to go in order to access the unix filesystem from winecfg? I know that there is room for improvements, and I'm working on it. But if you think it is not the right thing to do, I will stop working on it and save some time for other stuff.
I think the extension itself is perfectly reasonable. The thing I'm not sure about is creating a brand new dll for it, adding Wine-specific dlls should be avoided if possible. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org
On Tuesday 08 March 2005 20:12, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
I think the extension itself is perfectly reasonable. The thing I'm not sure about is creating a brand new dll for it, adding Wine-specific dlls should be avoided if possible.
This is from dlls/shell32/shellole.c: /* this table contains all CLSID's of shell32 objects */ struct { REFIID riid; LPFNCREATEINSTANCE lpfnCI; } InterfaceTable[] = { {&CLSID_ShellFSFolder, &IFSFolder_Constructor}, {&CLSID_MyComputer, &ISF_MyComputer_Constructor}, {&CLSID_ShellDesktop, &ISF_Desktop_Constructor}, {&CLSID_ShellLink, &IShellLink_Constructor}, {&CLSID_DragDropHelper, &IDropTargetHelper_Constructor}, {&CLSID_ControlPanel, &IControlPanel_Constructor}, {&CLSID_AutoComplete, &IAutoComplete_Constructor}, {NULL,NULL} }; Would you consider it more reasonable to implement unixfs as a part of shell32? We would not have to alter the APIs exported by shell32 to do this. Wine's shell32 would just recognize more CLSID's than the original one. Bye, -- Michael Jung mjung(a)iss.tu-darmstadt.de
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
I think the extension itself is perfectly reasonable. The thing I'm not sure about is creating a brand new dll for it, adding Wine-specific dlls should be avoided if possible.
I agree about dlls that cause un-standard linkage from using code to private dll. But this is a Control. the only linkage is through the registry, and is totally optional to any running/using code. It's like the Mozilla control or any other utility add in. Just from Winehq this time. Free Life Boaz
On Tuesday 08 March 2005 20:12, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
I think the extension itself is perfectly reasonable. The thing I'm not sure about is creating a brand new dll for it, adding Wine-specific dlls should be avoided if possible.
I moved the unixfs stuff from a separate dll into shell32. Do you think this is reasonable? The patch still needs some polishing, so please don't apply yet. Greetings, -- Michael Jung mjung(a)iss.tu-darmstadt.de
participants (3)
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Boaz Harrosh -
Michael Jung