On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Erich E. Hoover erich.e.hoover@gmail.com wrote:
As he said in the original email, Anastasius Focht is the one who looked at the wininet behavior and described it others (https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36830#c0). Sounds to me like the old Compaq system of having one person look at what the original does while having another person implement it from their notes.
The point of this system is to isolate the implementer from the implementation details of the original, so they can't copy those details. They are supposed to only be given an interface to implement, which they may do differently (if that's possible while still implementing the required interface). It doesn't work if the implementer is told the implementation details, so when doing this you have to be careful about the information you give.
I can't explain why the relay call out from wininet to winsock is too much information in this case, but it's been a general policy that we don't look at the calls native makes. (I also learned that policy the hard way, unfortunately.)