James wrote: > I thought the idea was to implement winhttp and then > implement wininet on top of winhttp. Why are you importing wininet?
As of January, Hans was still talking about implementing winhttp on top of wininet ( http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2008-January/062172.html http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2007-August/058420.html ) It's not clear one can fully implement either wininet on top of winhttp or vice versa. We will probably need some code duplication or private interfaces eventually. Building winhttp on top of wininet lets us develop on trunk and is probably the fastest path to making a bunch of applications happy, isn't it? That's the way I'm leaning, anyway. - Dan