On Tuesday, December 13, 2016, Hans Leidekker &lt;<a href="mailto:hans@codeweavers.com">hans@codeweavers.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 10:55 -0200, Bruno Jesus wrote:<br>
&gt; On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Hans Leidekker &lt;<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;hans@codeweavers.com&#39;)">hans@codeweavers.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; &gt; Signed-off-by: Hans Leidekker &lt;<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;hans@codeweavers.com&#39;)">hans@codeweavers.com</a>&gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; ---<br>
&gt; &gt;  dlls/winhttp/net.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<wbr>+++--------------<br>
&gt; &gt;  1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Hi, Isn&#39;t it better to make winhttp use ws2_32 just like wininet<br>
&gt; change [1]? Then we would have a single point for all networking code<br>
&gt; and EINTR is already covered in ws2_32.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; [1] <a href="http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/commitdiff/5436fef80722fe7896aed5e659c31fdade4ef5b3" target="_blank">http://source.winehq.org/git/<wbr>wine.git/commitdiff/<wbr>5436fef80722fe7896aed5e659c31f<wbr>dade4ef5b3</a><br>
<br>
I have been waiting for a more compelling reason. Moving to ws2_32 is not<br>
entirely free (e.g. from a performance or debugging perspective). I believe<br>
the wininet switch was motivated by programs that rely on wininet to initialize<br>
winsock, but I&#39;m not aware of such problems with winhttp.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I understand, but the code would be much cleaner and I don&#39;t recall any bugs complaining about wininet performance. Are you fixing any bug or regression? Otherwise I think this should be discussed further after the freeze. </div>