Hans Leidekker hans@codeweavers.com wrote:
Hans, are you planning to somehow reuse our patches or still prefer your own way of adding Kerberos support?
I don't see an immediate need to split the Kerberos code into a new dll. Do you have an application that depends on this?
Yes, I have an application that indirectly depends on this: it's a security provider that installs its own DLL (GOST), adds it onto the list of existing SSPs in the registry, and expects that secur32 would load it on the applications' requests. Also separating Kerberos implementation moves external dependencies out of secur32.dll.