On Sunday 16 December 2007 22:47:23 James Hawkins wrote:
ws2_32 or wsock32, or both, depending on the existing bugs.
Given that wsock32 forwards over 90% of the calls to ws2_32, let's go for that one then.
Coming to think about that, if we're fine to add more categories for things like secur32.dll, how about splitting up those by debug channel? E.g. my ntlm provider has an "ntlm" debug channel, the kerberos provider that I keep starting and restarting in some branches on my box always uses "kerberos", and Juan might want to use schannel as debug channel.
I have to voice my disagreement on this one. per-debug channel is too fine-grained, and that's a road we don't want to go down. Think of it like this: the components are not meant to help the users in any way, only the developers.
But I as a part-time developer can't keep track of all the areas in Wine. I don't know anything about.. say GUI.. or actually anything that's not secur32 or maybe winsock. Where's the advantage of me refiling a bug someone filed as.. say "ws2_32" to "default" again because I don't know what gui component is responsible as opposed to me refiling it as wine-gui (see bug 9771 as a specific example that just came up).
As a developer, will the different provider components (ntlm, kerberos, et.al.) help you any? You'll have to read the logs anyway.
Well, maybe. Once schannel is implemented, I probably won't look at those because I don't know about schannel. I don't get your point about having to read logs, because I think that is needed for all but the most obviously invalid bugs.
schannel, on the other hand, is a module in the wine tree, so that would be a useful component.
Nope. It forwards to secur32.dll, apart from two calls. I'm kind of certain we're just arguing about what color the bikeshed should be painted in, but either we just lump all sspi errors into one category, or we have one per logical module.
So I guess the real question is how much diversity we want and need.
Cheers, Kai