Re: winscard: add pcsc-lite helpers for upcoming implementation

[Juan Lang]

+BOOL InitializePCSCLite(void)

You don't use the return value:

@@ -42,9 +43,11 @@ BOOL WINAPI DllMain (HINSTANCE hinstDLL, DWORD
fdwReason, LPVOID lpvReserved)
         {
             DisableThreadLibraryCalls(hinstDLL);
             WINSCARD_hModule = hinstDLL;
+            InitializePCSCLite();
             break;
         }

I suspect it's safer not to fail loading winscard if PCSC-Lite isn't
available.  Instead, the functions such as SCardListCards should probably
return empty lists.  But knowing to do so relies on knowing that PCSC-Lite
couldn't be initialized, so the return value shouldn't be thrown away. 
Or, remove the return value, and have every function check the function
pointers it needs.

--Juan

____________________________________________________________________________________Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's 
Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. 
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222

winscard: add pcsc-lite helpers for upcoming implementation

[Mounir IDRASSI]

Thanks for your comments Juan.
Actually, the upcoming implementation checks the used function pointer at
each call and returns an error if not assigned. Also in it, winscard
always succeed to load even if pcsc-lite is not running. FYI, my first
winscard patch contains an advanced stage of the whole implementation.
Concerning the BOOL return value, it's here for "historical" reasons. I'll
remove it.

Mounir IDRASSI
IDRIX - Cryptography and IT Security Experts
http://wwww.idrix.fr
> +BOOL InitializePCSCLite(void)
>
> You don't use the return value:
>
> @@ -42,9 +43,11 @@ BOOL WINAPI DllMain (HINSTANCE hinstDLL, DWORD
> fdwReason, LPVOID lpvReserved)
>          {
>              DisableThreadLibraryCalls(hinstDLL);
>              WINSCARD_hModule = hinstDLL;
> -
>        InitializePCSCLite();
>        break;
>    }
>
> I suspect it's safer not to fail loading winscard if PCSC-Lite isn't
> available.  Instead, the functions such as SCardListCards should probably
> return empty lists.  But knowing to do so relies on knowing that PCSC-Lite
> couldn't be initialized, so the return value shouldn't be thrown away.
> Or, remove the return value, and have every function check the function
> pointers it needs.
>
> --Juan