November 2004 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Re[2]: Edit - wants all keys when multiline

by Vitaliy Margolen

Should I then go for take 3 then? I have added few more tests in take 2. Mainly for styles being consistent with native. Monday, November 1, 2004, 12:33:38 PM, you wrote: > "Dmitry Timoshkov" <dmitry(a)baikal.ru> writes: >> And please merge your test into existing win.c tests. > Actually I think it's fine to have separate test files for controls, > we already have a listbox.c so we can have an edit.c. The guideline is > that the layout of the test directory should be close to the layout of > the source directory being tested.

Nov. 1, 2004

compiling wine with msvc

by James Hawkins

I'm trying to get the wine tests to compile under msvc, so I ran msvcmaker in the wine source under cygwin (which was successful). Then I opened the winetest project and did a 'rebuild all'. When it tries to compile advapi32_test/security.c I get an warning and 102 errors: C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio\VC98\INCLUDE\rpc.h(89) : warning C4005: 'RPCRTAPI' : macro redefinition ..\..\..\include\rpc.h(45) : see previous definition of 'RPCRTAPI' :\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio\VC98\INCLUDE\rpcnsi.h(37) : error C2143: syntax error : missing ')' before 'type' C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio\VC98\INCLUDE\rpcnsi.h(37) : error C2491: 'RpcNsBindingExportA' : definition of dllimport function not allowed ......etc I'm pretty sure the problem is that the the msvc's rpc.h and rpcnsi.h files are being included when they shouldn't. Is that about right? If so, what could be a possible solution? BTW I'm compiling with MSVC++ 6.0. wine cvs from 11-01-2004. -- James Hawkins

Nov. 1, 2004

RFC: yield on Waits

by Jeremy White

Hi folks, Due to my new found belief that all of the flaws in Wine are timing problems, I have found what appears to be a gaping hole in Wine's timing behavior. Specifically, it appears as though any style of Waitxxx is supposed to yield the processor. This seems a bit difficult for me to believe, even though we had earlier discovered that Wine was never yielding on a Sleep(0). I've attached the test program I used to discover this. If you run sleep2 -1 0w the program will start 2 threads, one which spin loops (-1), and one which does a wait on an object for 0 seconds. You'll see in the results that the Wait(...,0) thread gets far fewer loops, and thus must be yielding. Further, changing that to a 0ws (or even 5ws), which means we're waiting on a signalled object, doesn't change the behavior. This leads me to suggest the attached patch. I would appreciate review from other folks, because this seems like a drastic change to me, and it strikes me as equally likely that I've done something stupid. Cheers, Jeremy

Nov. 1, 2004

Re: Edit - wants all keys when multiline

by Alexandre Julliard

"Dmitry Timoshkov" <dmitry(a)baikal.ru> writes: > And please merge your test into existing win.c tests. Actually I think it's fine to have separate test files for controls, we already have a listbox.c so we can have an edit.c. The guideline is that the layout of the test directory should be close to the layout of the source directory being tested. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

Nov. 1, 2004

Re: How difficult would it be to make the equivalent of Windows Terminal Server with Wine?

by Hans Leidekker

On Monday 1 November 2004 17:38, Markus Amsler wrote: > My approach was the following: > Server side: > - defining a mime-type application/x11-control (or something similar) > - a x control file, with all the information to connect to the Defining your your own mime-type has a disadvantage in that nobody but you knows about it (yet). In Boaz's approach it's not needed because it's not an X session that's started from the browser (OCX) but an ssh session that then starts the the remote app and tunnels the X session in case it's a graphical app. So what would be needed is a tiny shell script that goes like: #!/bin/sh ssh -X user(a)apphost '/path/to/wine/app.exe' A mime-type for shell scripts already exists: application/x-sh > This may be a little off-topic, but the idea combining http and x is > really fascinating. Funny how we were independently getting off-topic within the same thread. -Hans

Nov. 1, 2004

Re: Listview notify_dispinfoT Messageformat

by Thorsten Kani

I asked the List about the Problem and how to solve it correctly. Please excuse my bad English (: - will try your patch asap. Tho >Why are you saying that. The code treats LVN_GETDISPINFOW special >because it's the only type of message that *gets* textual data >rather then sending. SO for this reason, we just reset the buffer >on the way out. What other difference is there? > > > >>This leads to problems with Braindamaged_Apps(TM) wich handle only the >>Unicode Message. (Tested App was "Explorer") >> >> > >Heh. Right now we only send ASCII notifications, which would be >even worse. We need proper test cases. > > >

Nov. 1, 2004

Re: COM / Installshield status?

by Tony Lambregts

Dan Kegel wrote: >Likewise, what's the current status of Installshield support, >and how much work would it be to fully support >Installshield-based installers? I don't see any >open Installshield bug reports, maybe I should file >one against the apps I have that don't install at >the moment. (Or would that be overkill?) > There are lots of bugs against installshield. http://appdb.winehq.org/bugs.php?appId=995. There are 7 that are open and 1 that is marked as later. -- Tony Lambregts

Nov. 1, 2004

Re: How difficult would it be to make the equivalent of Windows Terminal Server with Wine?

by Markus Amsler

Hans Leidekker wrote: >>>different apps you want to serve. The user uses IE to navigate to that >>>page. When clicking, the App comes up as a window in his/her machine. >>>First time visit Installs a 12M Cygwin/X server. >>> >>> > >I really like the concept but your approach seems to limit publishing of apps >to Windows boxes. Theoretically you could run the OCX (Internet Explorer) on >Wine and the Cygwin/X as well but not practically though, if only from a >performance point of view. > >It would be more interesting if Mac/Linux/Unix users could use their browser >of choice and their native X server, which is usually already installed on >those platforms. How exactly is this approach dependent on the use of an OCX? > > -Hans > > I really like the idea invoking a X-session from your browser. Some time ago working on some complex php/dhtml web site administration scripts, I had the feeling programming a real app instead of a web app would be much easier. I never got concrete, but made some ideas. My approach was the following: Server side: - defining a mime-type application/x11-control (or something similar) - a x control file, with all the information to connect to the X-client over ssh (app-name, host, ports, [ssh username,password], ...). (say tst.x11) - a link to the tst.x11 file in the webpage. - the app itself - a unix user (anonymous or autorized) Client side: - A x invoking script - Map application/x11-control type to the x-script When you click on the link, your x-script gets invoked with the tst.x11 files, which then connects to the x-client. You could also (optionally) specify an anonymous user/password setting for the ssh tunnel. This approach would be completly platform independant. But it would require the web-client to install the x-script and map the mime-type (well the x-script installation could do that). I googled a little around, but found nothing similiar, although the approach seems to me pretty obvious. This may be a little off-topic, but the idea combining http and x is really fascinating. Markus

Nov. 1, 2004

Re: How difficult would it be to make the equivalent of Windows Terminal Server with Wine?

by Hans Leidekker

On Monday 1 November 2004 16:27, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > Actually all it is on windows is a shell access with an invocation of > ssh -X, And the regular IE's safe-for-scripting stuff. > (ssh is installed along side with the cygwin/X server) I think the use of ssh is a good choice because it let's you transparently encrypt the X connection as well as restrict the use of the connection. For example with ssh you can tie an authorized key to a single command, which in this situation would be the command to start the windows app. So you don't give away full shell access (not immediatley at least) and with the exchange of keys you can also achieve a non-interactive login. I do this all the time when I run cross compiled Wine tests. I have a Win2k VMWare instance on my laptop (could be a machine anywhere else on the network) which has Cygwin + sshd installed and the Wine source tree mounted on drive w: over SMB. A session then looks like this: $ ssh -t hans(a)win2k 'w:/dlls/kernel/tests/kernel32_crosstest.exe change' change: 88 tests executed, 0 marked as todo, 0 failures. Connection to win2k closed. Saves you a lot of mouse moving and clicking before you can run the binary on Windows. This gives me a very fast 'change source -> compile -> run on Wine and Windows' cycle because I essentially don't have to leave my shell. Sorry for getting off-topic. I just thought others might find this interesting as well. -Hans

Nov. 1, 2004

Re: How difficult would it be to make the equivalent of Windows Terminal Server with Wine?

by Boaz Harrosh

Hans Leidekker wrote: >I really like the concept but your approach seems to limit publishing of apps >to Windows boxes. Theoretically you could run the OCX (Internet Explorer) on >Wine and the Cygwin/X as well but not practically though, if only from a >performance point of view. > >It would be more interesting if Mac/Linux/Unix users could use their browser >of choice and their native X server, which is usually already installed on >those platforms. How exactly is this approach dependent on the use of an OCX? > > -Hans > > Very good question! Once I de-wrinkle all details with my boss, I want to publish the source for the OCX. The first "todo" it will have is the: How to port to other platforms/browsers.? On the Server html page I have the <object> tag with the CODEBASE="path2cab/xwidget.CAB" attribute (xwidget is what I called the OCX) I have read that there is a way to have platform/browser specific installation packages. But than how to do it with each platform? I don't know? any Mozilla guru out there that can help. On Linux all you need is a client side access to the shell. And also on Mac OSX. Actually all it is on windows is a shell access with an invocation of ssh -X, And the regular IE's safe-for-scripting stuff. (ssh is installed along side with the cygwin/X server) It is all very Client un-safe and should probably be confined to the IntraNet only. Server safety can be kept. Maybe the best would be to embed the ssh inside the Object and not let the server have a shell access on the client. I'll see how it goes and if client safety is requested at all. Free Life Boaz

Nov. 1, 2004