unixfs

[Michael Jung]

Hello,

Could you please tell me if you consider the unixfs shell namespace extension, 
which I've sent to wine-patches last week, a sensible way to go in order to 
access the unix filesystem from winecfg? I know that there is room for 
improvements, and I'm working on it. But if you think it is not the right 
thing to do, I will stop working on it and save some time for other stuff.

Bye,

[Alexandre Julliard]

Michael Jung  writes:
> Could you please tell me if you consider the unixfs shell namespace extension, 
> which I've sent to wine-patches last week, a sensible way to go in order to 
> access the unix filesystem from winecfg? I know that there is room for 
> improvements, and I'm working on it. But if you think it is not the right 
> thing to do, I will stop working on it and save some time for other stuff.

I think the extension itself is perfectly reasonable. The thing I'm
not sure about is creating a brand new dll for it, adding
Wine-specific dlls should be avoided if possible.

[Michael Jung]

On Tuesday 08 March 2005 20:12, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> I think the extension itself is perfectly reasonable. The thing I'm
> not sure about is creating a brand new dll for it, adding
> Wine-specific dlls should be avoided if possible.

This is from dlls/shell32/shellole.c:

/* this table contains all CLSID's of shell32 objects */
struct {
 REFIID   riid;
 LPFNCREATEINSTANCE lpfnCI;
} InterfaceTable[] = {
 {&CLSID_ShellFSFolder, &IFSFolder_Constructor},
 {&CLSID_MyComputer, &ISF_MyComputer_Constructor},
 {&CLSID_ShellDesktop, &ISF_Desktop_Constructor},
 {&CLSID_ShellLink, &IShellLink_Constructor},
 {&CLSID_DragDropHelper, &IDropTargetHelper_Constructor},
 {&CLSID_ControlPanel, &IControlPanel_Constructor},
 {&CLSID_AutoComplete,   &IAutoComplete_Constructor},
 {NULL,NULL}
};

Would you consider it more reasonable to implement unixfs as a part of 
shell32? We would not have to alter the APIs exported by shell32 to do this.
Wine's shell32 would just recognize more CLSID's than the original one.

Bye,

[Boaz Harrosh]

Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> I think the extension itself is perfectly reasonable. The thing I'm
> not sure about is creating a brand new dll for it, adding
> Wine-specific dlls should be avoided if possible.

I agree about dlls that cause un-standard linkage from using code to 
private dll. But this is a Control. the only linkage is through the 
registry, and is totally optional to any running/using code. It's like 
the Mozilla control or any other utility add in. Just from Winehq this time.

Free Life
Boaz

[Michael Jung]

On Tuesday 08 March 2005 20:12, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> I think the extension itself is perfectly reasonable. The thing I'm
> not sure about is creating a brand new dll for it, adding
> Wine-specific dlls should be avoided if possible.

I moved the unixfs stuff from a separate dll into shell32. Do you think this 
is reasonable? The patch still needs some polishing, so please don't apply 
yet.

Greetings,