Eric Pouech <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:I don't need the obfuscation at all (just setting the two lower bits of the handle to 1). I used obfuscation to make it easier to track bugs. I'll resubmit without the obfuscation macros.
- this patch partially implements this scheme. It's partial because console handles are still handled by wineserver. Their value is however obfuscated so that we can track their real usage.
IMO you shouldn't need to have any obfuscation code in the server at all. If you need that, something is wrong with the design.
- next step would mean implementing the console handle management outside of wineserver (likely in wineconsole)I'm not convinced we really need that; IMO it's OK to keep them in the server, as long as we can identify them as console handles from the client.
I was what I really wanted to move to wineconsole was the content of screen buffers (which are copied twice currently and which I find rather bad). Of course, we could split handle management and object management in two different locations (wineserver resp. wineconsole), but this will complicate things IMO
and as any performance enhancement, it doesn't need to be done immediately (there are some other items to focus on)
A+
-- Eric Pouech
