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 wine-devel@winehq.org if you want my reply.
2014年3月3日月曜日、Nikolay Sivov<bunglehead@gmail.com> 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<bunglehead@gmail.com> 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 <bunglehead@gmail.com>:
On 3/2/2014 10:44, Akira Nakagawa wrote:

What's that about?