[ros-dev] Undocumented APIs
ionucu at videotron.ca
Tue Jan 31 20:31:02 CET 2006
Steven Edwards wrote:
>On 1/31/06, Alex Ionescu <ionucu at videotron.ca> wrote:
>>Well you're contradicting yourself..."When there is documentation
>>describing the way Windows does something then we should follow it" then
>>you say "If an API is not used by application then we should not
>>implement it because it does not help the goal of the project".
>>SMSS/CSRSS are documented and described in general...however not
>>implementing them at all does not change the fact that Office and MSN
>>Messenger will run. No application/driver depends on them...
>>You guys better decide, you seem kind of confused...are you going to
>>create a working model of NT based on architectural information (and
>>that includes, OSR, PDBs, MSDN, DDKs, NTDEV/NTIFS Mailing Lists, Windows
>>Internals, Probert, etc) or are you going to create some half-assed OS
>>that runs every app the users want?
>It either must 1. Be documented or 2. Have a third party application
>that depends on certain functionality. If MSDN, OSR, NTDEV Windows
>Internels and Probert document it then sure we can implement it.
You are still not being clear. Those sources document generic
architecture, not direct APIs. If you implement it, then you need to
implement undocumented APIs/entire modules which nobody will use.
> I no
>longer view the PDBs as a valid clean room source.
I guess Microsoft won then, without even having to contact us. Will the
DDK/IFS be considered dirty too, soon? You know, I've talked to some
driver developers out there and people involved in NT kernel
development, and they've been laughing out loud at this... good luck
ever trying to achieve more then 0.1% driver support with this mentality.
>Steven Edwards - ReactOS and Wine developer
>"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and
>that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo
More information about the Ros-dev