Daniel Remenak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Submitted #5 a couple days ago, along with a short explanation of how > it all worked together. Any comments? If you'd like me to change the > architecture I'm willing to do so, if you can give me some hints about > what direction to go with it. If you want some other changes made, > please drop some clues about what they might be. If you want to see > more, I have more that can be cleaned up for submission. If you need > more clarification on some issue I can give it. I just loathe sitting > around wondering if these are good enough or not when I could be > working more on them if they need revision or the next batch if they > don't ;)
It looks a bit overdesigned to me. With this patch you add even more infrastructure, generic interfaces, etc. and it still doesn't do anything. I'd suggest going the other way around: implement one working version of the code without worrying about being generic, without trying to abstract interfaces or anything, just a simple source file implementing the COM interface directly. Then if there's really a need for other implementations to share a lot of code we can look at abstracting parts of it. -- Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED]