Wednesday, November 23, 2005, 11:05:05 AM, Robert Shearman wrote:
> Alexandre Julliard wrote:
>>Vitaliy Margolen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>+/* open a new handle to an existing object */
>>+obj_handle_t open_object_dir( const struct object_attr *attr, const struct
>>object_ops *ops,
>>+ unsigned int access )
> If so, I don't see much of a problem with it. Maybe we shouldn't return
> a handle, but instead return a "struct object *" or a "void *", but
> passing in struct object_ops * into the function isn't doing anything
> other than eliminating common code in most of the objects. It doesn't
> force anything to be exported outside of the implementation of the object.
The part I'm talking about is this:
Using object_attr:
static struct object *create_mapping( const struct object_attr *attr,
file_pos_t size, int protect,
obj_handle_t handle )
No using object_attr:
static struct object *create_mapping( const struct object *root, const struct
unicode_str *name,
unsigned int attr, file_pos_t size, int
protect,
obj_handle_t handle )
And this:
struct object_attr
{
obj_handle_t rootdir; /* RootDirectory */
struct unicode_str *name; /* ObjectName */
unsigned int attributes; /* Attributes */
};
I can replace handle with object * but that will just add more code to
each
[open|close]_[even|mapping|semaphore|timer|namedpipe|winstation|desktop]
