I've updated my in-process wineserver hack, cleaned it up a bit more and fixed a few problems. So, at least in Star Wars Battlefront II, the sound and HID problems are fixed (the "select" server call must be made via the pipe). I presume there are other server calls with similar properties. Also, the wineserver now exits properly and cleans up it's instance when the main process terminates. Changed the enabling enviroment variable to "WINESPEEDHACK".
So what would it take for this to be integrated into wine as an optional feature?
Daniel Santos danielfsantos@att.net writes:
I've updated my in-process wineserver hack, cleaned it up a bit more and fixed a few problems. So, at least in Star Wars Battlefront II, the sound and HID problems are fixed (the "select" server call must be made via the pipe). I presume there are other server calls with similar properties. Also, the wineserver now exits properly and cleans up it's instance when the main process terminates. Changed the enabling enviroment variable to "WINESPEEDHACK".
So what would it take for this to be integrated into wine as an optional feature?
You'll probably have to kill me first ;-)
Hi Daniel,
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:15 AM, Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org wrote:
Daniel Santos danielfsantos@att.net writes:
I've updated my in-process wineserver hack, cleaned it up a bit more and fixed a few problems. So, at least in Star Wars Battlefront II, the sound and HID problems are fixed (the "select" server call must be made via the pipe). I presume there are other server calls with similar properties. Also, the wineserver now exits properly and cleans up it's instance when the main process terminates. Changed the enabling enviroment variable to "WINESPEEDHACK".
So what would it take for this to be integrated into wine as an optional feature?
You'll probably have to kill me first ;-)
a more serious reply: you may not be aware the Transgaming did just such a thing years ago, and lobbied pretty heavily for it to be included. AJ declined at the time. The reasons for not including it remain the same: because of the possibility of a buggy app taking down the wineserver, we couldn't ever attempt to support such a beast. Any bug reported against it would be suspect. Worse, people might report bugs neglecting to mention that they'd enabled it.
So no, we really won't ever include such a feature as part of an official release around here. We already have enough trouble with people reporting bugs in unsupported configurations.
You're welcome to maintain your own fork, or maintain your patch for people to try in their own Wine builds if they like. --Juan
On 01/23/2012 11:01 AM, Juan Lang wrote:
Hi Daniel,
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:15 AM, Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org wrote:
Daniel Santos danielfsantos@att.net writes:
I've updated my in-process wineserver hack, cleaned it up a bit more and fixed a few problems. So, at least in Star Wars Battlefront II, the sound and HID problems are fixed (the "select" server call must be made via the pipe). I presume there are other server calls with similar properties. Also, the wineserver now exits properly and cleans up it's instance when the main process terminates. Changed the enabling enviroment variable to "WINESPEEDHACK".
So what would it take for this to be integrated into wine as an optional feature?
You'll probably have to kill me first ;-)
Do you have a taster? :D (jk)
a more serious reply: you may not be aware the Transgaming did just such a thing years ago, and lobbied pretty heavily for it to be included. AJ declined at the time. The reasons for not including it remain the same: because of the possibility of a buggy app taking down the wineserver, we couldn't ever attempt to support such a beast. Any bug reported against it would be suspect. Worse, people might report bugs neglecting to mention that they'd enabled it.
So no, we really won't ever include such a feature as part of an official release around here. We already have enough trouble with people reporting bugs in unsupported configurations.
You're welcome to maintain your own fork, or maintain your patch for people to try in their own Wine builds if they like. --Juan
Thanks for the history and clarification. Indeed, it's an ugly little beast. I've tested it on a number of apps and uncovered some other other flaws in the patch (no surprise there). However, I've so far found it handy for testing some things, so I think that it's useful. For example, there a few performance bottlenecks I want to create specific (conventional) patches for and I already know it will help because I can toggle how the call is made (well yes, I know, I can also toggle logging, and I did that before, but this just confirms it).
So I can understand your reluctance, but I still think it might be worth consideration at some point (or in some other incarnation).
Daniel
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Daniel Santos -
Juan Lang