Re: Support remote operations in wineserver

2004-09-24 Thread Mike Hearn
If we would use service thread (that was removed from wine long ago, do not mix with service thread i'm going to introduce in service subsystem), win32 api would be enough. What's wrong with using POSIX signals?

Re: Support remote operations in wineserver

2004-09-23 Thread Alexander Yaworsky
Hello > Sorry but I dont understand the need of remote operations in > Wineserver. They provide another kind of interprocess communications. We should force another process to execute desired operation. Added requests help to supply parameters and obtain the result. If we would use service threa

Re: Support remote operations in wineserver

2004-09-23 Thread Alexandre Julliard
"Alexander Yaworsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ok, here is a draft working implementation of NtAllocateVirtualMemory. > There are four mechanisms at all: signals, ptrace, service thread and wait. This > implementation uses so-called wait approach: request is passed via wait_fd. > The drawback

Re: Support remote operations in wineserver

2004-09-23 Thread Steven Edwards
Hello, --- Alexander Yaworsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok, here is a draft working implementation of > NtAllocateVirtualMemory. > There are four mechanisms at all: signals, ptrace, service thread and > wait. This > implementation uses so-called wait approach: request is passed via > wait_fd. >

Re: Support remote operations in wineserver

2004-09-23 Thread Alexander Yaworsky
Hello > Well, I'm not going to commit that part since it doesn't actually do > anything with the remote operation, and it's not clear at all that the > requests you added will be appropriate to whatever mechanism we use to > do the remote operation. Ok, here is a draft working implementation of N

Re: Support remote operations in wineserver

2004-09-22 Thread Alexandre Julliard
"Alexander Yaworsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hello > > I guess that original patch was too large. > I sent small pieces of it and they have been committed; however it seems that > this part cannot be downsized. Well, I'm not going to commit that part since it doesn't actually do anything wi