Re: patch:add HANDLE

[Nikolay Sivov]

On 3/3/2014 16:32, Akira Nakagawa wrote:
> It was a little hurtful that you have said...
> what did you mean of "dead code"?

I mean that code that your patch adds is not used.
> I've checked Windows itself uses it as public handle.

What does a public handle mean and what did you check exactly?
> My patch is not enough,you say,to be send,then I send after finished 
> eventlog functions works.

You shouldn't send everything as one patch either, it needs to be 
incremental but without dead parts.

Please CC [e-mail] if you want my reply.
> 2014年3月3日月曜日、Nikolay Sivov<[e-mail] 
> > さ んは書きました:
> On 3/2/2014 15:18, 中川祥 wrote:
> > Hum?
> > I thought all the HANDLEs are hosted by server.
> I don't think you need event log handles to be handled by server,
> I'd rather had a service handling them.
> > Hence,I did.
> > It need be hosted by server because you need to distinguish one
> > eventlog from the ohter,any way.
> I'm not sure I follow you here.Anyway, you'll need some plan for
> all parts involved (advapi32, logging service, something else?)
> before sending such dead code patches.
>
> Please keep wine-devel CC.
> > 2014年3月2日日曜日、Nikolay Sivov<[e-mail]
> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[e-mail]');>> さんは書
> > きました:
> >
> >     On 3/2/2014 14:13, 中川祥 wrote:
> > >     Handle for eventlog.
> > >     It is different from event.
> > >     It's almost same as hfile,but more info needed.
> > >     Is it implemented?
> >     What event log API are you talking about? Why does this
> >     handle have to be maintained by a server?
> > >     2014-03-02 16:19 GMT+09:00 Nikolay Sivov <[e-mail]>:
> > >
> > >         On 3/2/2014 10:44, Akira Nakagawa wrote:
> > >
> > >         What's that about?