Re: svrapi: realizes library svrapi.dll (3 of 20 functions).
Konstantin Petrov wrote: Your Patch is much to large.
dlls/svrapi/Makefile, dlls/svrapi/libsvrapi.def,
This files are created automatic by the build-system.
+16 stdcall NetShareAdd (str long str long) WIN98_NetShareAdd +17 stdcall NetShareDel(str str long) WIN98_NetShareDel +18 stdcall NetShareEnum(str long ptr long ptr ptr) WIN98_NetShareEnum +19 stub NetShareGetInfo +20 stub NetShareSetInfo
Are the ordinals needed / Which app import this Functions by Ordinal?
--- /dev/null 2006-07-03 10:36:18 +0400 +++ dlls/svrapi/svrapi_main.c 2006-07-24 15:08:49 +0400
I suggest to send a Patch, that has only "DllMain" in this File to reduce the size. Add a stub with description in a separate Patch.
+//SHPWLEN is not known !!!!!! C++ - Comments are not allowed in wine (it's not portable)
+#define SHPWLEN LM20_PWLEN
+typedef struct _share_info_1 { + char shi1_netname[LM20_NNLEN+1]; + char shi1_pad1; + unsigned short shi1_type; + char* shi1_remark; +} share_info_1;
+typedef struct _share_info_50 { + char shi50_netname[LM20_NNLEN+1]; + unsigned char shi50_type; + unsigned short shi50_flags; + char* shi50_remark; + char* shi50_path; + char shi50_rw_password[SHPWLEN+1]; + char shi50_ro_password[SHPWLEN+1]; +} share_info_50;
This seems to be the wrong location here. (svrapi.h) Should be the first patch (only this include-file)
+BOOL WINAPI DllMain(HINSTANCE hinstDLL, DWORD fdwReason, LPVOID fImpLoad) +{ + TRACE("%p 0x%lx %p\n", hinstDLL, fdwReason, fImpLoad); + + switch(fdwReason) {
Do not forget "DLL_WINE_PREATTACH"
+ + FIXME("Stub (%s %d %p %d %p %p)\n", (pszServer ? pszServer:"NULL"), sLevel, pbBuffer, + cbBuffer, pcEntriesRead, pcTotalAvail);
you need debugstr_a()
+ if (pbBuffer != NULL) + HeapFree(GetProcessHeap(), 0, pbBuffer);
HeapFree() handles NULL; we removed similar unneeded "if" recently.
+ if(pszServer != NULL) return NERR_NetNameNotFound;
Many Functions in other dll's handle an empty Servername as an alias for the local Computer (the same way as an NULL-Parameter). Did you test this?
+ // if ((sLevel == 50) && (cbBuffer == sizeof(share_info_50))) //in real
Why do you not use this code, when it reflects the windows-behavior? -- By By ... ... Detlef
In this patch I create new library svrapi.dll There are: dlls/svrapi/svrapi_main.c dlls/svrapi/scrapi.spec dlls/svrapi/Makefile.in include/svrapi.h And changes in: configure.ac include/Makefile.in dlls/Makefile.in -- Best regards, Konstantin Petrov
In this patch I make 3 functions (FIXME): NetShareEnum, NetShareDel, NetShareAdd Files to change: dlls/svrapi/svrapi_main.c dlls/svrapi/svrapi.spec -- Best Regards, Konstantin Petrov
Петров Константин <argentum(a)office.etersoft.ru> writes:
+/************************************************************************ +* The NetShareDel function deletes a share name from a server's list of shared resources, +* disconnecting all connections to the shared resource. +* servername +* pszServer [in] Pointer to a string that specifies the DNS or NetBIOS name of the remote +* server on which the function is to execute. If this parameter is NULL, +* the local computer is used. +* pszNetName [in] Pointer to a string that specifies the name of the share to delete. +* usReserved [in] Reserved, must be zero. +*/
This documentation is copied straight from MSDN, that's not acceptable. Since many people don't seem to understand this, from now on I'm going to reject all patches that add documentation, unless the submitter explicitly mentions that he didn't look at MSDN to write it. I'm sorry to penalize people who do the right thing, but I can't continue to waste time checking every single doc patch against MSDN. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org
On 9/8/06, Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> wrote:
Since many people don't seem to understand this, from now on I'm going to reject all patches that add documentation, unless the submitter explicitly mentions that he didn't look at MSDN to write it. I'm sorry to penalize people who do the right thing, but I can't continue to waste time checking every single doc patch against MSDN.
I've updated the IMPLEMENTING NEW API CALLS section of the DEVELOPER HINTS on the wiki to reflect this new policy change in the example section "NOTE: When submitting documentation changes, you must clearly state that when creating your patch that you did not copy the function documentation from MSDN. When implementing a new function it is fine to look at the API documentation on MSDN however the api documentation must be written in your own words." -- Steven Edwards "There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo
On 08.09.2006 17:20, Steven Edwards wrote:
On 9/8/06, Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> wrote:
Since many people don't seem to understand this, from now on I'm going to reject all patches that add documentation, unless the submitter explicitly mentions that he didn't look at MSDN to write it. I'm sorry to penalize people who do the right thing, but I can't continue to waste time checking every single doc patch against MSDN.
"NOTE: When submitting documentation changes, you must clearly state that when creating your patch that you did not copy the function documentation from MSDN. When implementing a new function it is fine to look at the API documentation on MSDN however the api documentation must be written in your own words."
Hm, but wouldn't "didn't look at MSDN" also include "rewording"? To reword something, you need to look at the original, after all. So in the strictest interpretation, it looks to me that only "clean-room docs" (infer the documentation by looking at the source code) would be acceptable. -f.r.
On 9/8/06, Frank Richter <frank.richter(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hm, but wouldn't "didn't look at MSDN" also include "rewording"? To reword something, you need to look at the original, after all. So in the strictest interpretation, it looks to me that only "clean-room docs" (infer the documentation by looking at the source code) would be acceptable.
As far as I understand US and Internation Copyright law the interface cannot be copywritten so it would be permissable to look at the documentation when learning how to implement the function and then closing your browser and writting the documentation from memory. At least thats how it was explained to me at the first wineconf. Its a stretch I know but there is nothing legally that I can tell that prevents the developer from reading the API documentation and later writting his own documentation. IANAL so take that with a grain of salt. Perhaps the standard should be that the same developer that writes the API cannot document it. Julliards point of view seems to be when you write the interface your free to look at MSDN however don't write the API docs at the same time. Go back later, look at what you have done and base your documentation on your own work. -- Steven Edwards "There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo
In this patch I create new library svrapi.dll There are: dlls/svrapi/svrapi_main.c dlls/svrapi/scrapi.spec dlls/svrapi/Makefile.in include/svrapi.h And changes in: configure.ac include/Makefile.in dlls/Makefile.in -- Best regards, Konstantin Petrov
In this patch I make 3 functions (FIXME): NetShareEnum, NetShareDel, NetShareAdd Files to change: dlls/svrapi/svrapi_main.c dlls/svrapi/svrapi.spec -- Best Regards, Konstantin Petrov
participants (5)
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Detlef Riekenberg -
Frank Richter -
Steven Edwards -
Петров Константин