Dylan Smith wrote: > Currently msftedit.dll is implemented by loading riched20.dll and then > riched20.dll registers the classes that msftedit.dll normally register. > Native msftedit.dll appears to be a full implementation of the richedit > controls, rather than a wrapper. > > Here are the options that I can think of: > 1. We could continue to implement msftedit.dll as a wrapper around > riched20.dll. This patch would be a step in that direction. > 2. We could have two separate implementations, despite the fact that the > two dlls are very similar. > 3. We could have one implementation, and hope that it doesn't matter to > programs using them, but this seem too inflexible to me. > 4. We could also have a single implementation with preprocessor > conditions, and then compile the code twice with different defines. > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Phil Krylov <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > Hi, > > 2008/6/27 Dylan Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>: > > riched20.dll is implementing all the versions of richedit > controls (1.0, 2.0, > > 3.0, and 4.1), so it is better to store the version that is being > emulated. > > The bEmulateVersion10 value is replaced with dwEmulatedVersion. > > I thought it implements 1.0 emulation for riched32.dll usage and > latest possible version for other usages - just like native. Or are > you planning to add some functionality depending on the actual > emulated version, not on (dwEmulatedVersion < 0x200) boolean flag? > > -- Ph. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > The new guy votes for option one as it gives you the most flexibility going forward. 2 -4 have various issues:
Code maintainability. Of course you could extract the common stuff out and link it all together but in that case your kind of implementing solution one. Never say never =) and I would bet that it would in the end matter.. and your right.. it is very inflexible. Four kinda sounds kludgy.. While it solves problem 2 and 3 it seems a little inflexible. In this case either one or four are I think the best bets with number 1 being the most flexible.