On Friday 18 July 2008 05:45:15 James Hawkins wrote: > I thought the idea was to implement winhttp and then implement wininet > on top of winhttp. Why are you importing wininet?
wininet on top of winhttp is the most promising option but I don't think a consensus has been reached yet. A technical issue I see is that winhttp does not implement some of the more obscure status notifications that wininet supports. And there are process issues to solve as well. If we're going to duplicate code first I'm pretty sure it will have diverged by the time wininet is rewritten on top of winhttp. The best approach is perhaps to develop this in full on a private branch. A port of the wininet test suite, augmented with tests to prove feasibility of this approach would be a prerequisite for merging into Wine. -Hans
