Troy Rollo a écrit :
On Sat, 7 May 2005 16:16, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
What I found, when I suggested to clients to work this way, was that the
debugging tools were wholly and utterly inadequate. With all due respect
(and I have TONS of respect) to winedbg, it's not up to the standards of
working
On Sat, 7 May 2005 16:16, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
What I found, when I suggested to clients to work this way, was that the
debugging tools were wholly and utterly inadequate. With all due respect
(and I have TONS of respect) to winedbg, it's not up to the standards of
working with ddd or the
Ira Krakow wrote:
As many of you know, Brian and I are writing a book on
Wine and Winelib for Prentice Hall. Brian's doing the
Wine part; I'm doing the Winelib part.
At Wineconf, I had a number of conversations about
Winelib's role in converting Windows apps. The
consensus seems to be that the
Ira Krakow wrote:
As many of you know, Brian and I are writing a book on
Wine and Winelib for Prentice Hall. Brian's doing the
Wine part; I'm doing the Winelib part.
At Wineconf, I had a number of conversations about
Winelib's role in converting Windows apps. The
consensus seems to be that the
Ira Krakow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
At Wineconf, I had a number of conversations about
Winelib's role in converting Windows apps. The
consensus seems to be that the most efficient
conversion path is for much of the Windows app to stay
in Visual C++ (or whatever) and that only the modules
that
Hi Ira,
--- Ira Krakow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For example, if the application requires PAM
authentication, or a Linux-based help system, these
modules would be separated out and encapsulated as
Winelib objects. I was thinking of using PAM
authentication as a good example, since it works
