On Tuesday 17 June 2003 12:43 am, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
I think there is no definite answer, but the general gist is that we measure usability.
If usability is, indeed, what I'm supposed to be measuring, that could change my opinion. It's not clear to me whether anything really uses the FCI (compression) APIs in cabinet.dll... so far, I have yet to hear of anyone's app bombing out due to an unimplemented FCI API.
So, maybe the percentage should, indeed, go higher, to 80% or what-have-you (I'd still like to finish split cabs, and build some tests, before we go bumping the completion percentage). Visual Studio seems to statically link against cabinet.dll anyhow -- it's quite possible it wouldn't come up much at all -- maybe in WinZip or something. Certainly the most urgent need for this implementation is to get various installers working, which AFAIK only requires decompression.
Btw, there are some setupapi APIs which ought to be trivial to bang out once the FDI APIs are in place... I think they are all decompression-only, which would tend to strengthen the argument that the majority of the utility of the dll is in the decompression APIs.