On Dec 16, 2007 3:37 PM, Kai Blin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sunday 16 December 2007 21:14:16 James Hawkins wrote: > > > Ok, I'll start off the list. This is a first draft, open to changes > > and discussion. Entries with a (?) means I'm not sure. > > > > Components: > [...] > > wine-net -> > If you delete that one, we definitely need a "winsock" component. Or ws2_32... > or wsock.. I prefer "winsock" as that matches the debug channel as well. >
ws2_32 or wsock32, or both, depending on the existing bugs. > [...] > > wine-sspi -> (?) I prefer individual modules with a security or sspi > > keyword, but it's not up to me > [...] > > -> secur32 > > Coming to think about that, if we're fine to add more categories for things > like secur32.dll, how about splitting up those by debug channel? E.g. my ntlm > provider has an "ntlm" debug channel, the kerberos provider that I keep > starting and restarting in some branches on my box always uses "kerberos", > and Juan might want to use schannel as debug channel. > > That would also help advanced users to correctly file bugs according to > fixmes, e.g. if they run into an unimplemented function. > > I have to voice my disagreement on this one. per-debug channel is too fine-grained, and that's a road we don't want to go down. Think of it like this: the components are not meant to help the users in any way, only the developers. As a developer, will the different provider components (ntlm, kerberos, et.al.) help you any? You'll have to read the logs anyway. schannel, on the other hand, is a module in the wine tree, so that would be a useful component. -- James Hawkins