Well, I understand your standpoint but our positions are different. You have
to support toolkit customers and want to avoid possible problems and I want
an elegant solution for maybe rare problems. Whole discussion started with
Max’s assertion that named events are obsolete which is IMHO wrong.
As for un/documented… it is MS fault there are such things, isn’t it? I
believe at least native API should be fully documented. Not intended as
start of the next flamewar 
Best regards,
Michal Vodicka
STMicroelectronics Design and Application s.r.o.
[michal.vodicka@st.com, http:://www.st.com]
From: xxxxx@bsquare.com[SMTP:xxxxx@bsquare.com]
Reply To: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 9:57 PM
To: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
Subject: [ntdev] Re: Security Attributes on a Notification Event
creat ed at Kernel levelRight, never said it wasn’t possible, said it should be recommended
against.
I am adamantly opposed to anything that is not documented, for which there
are no *good* samples, which are not straight forward and that have an
alternative that is/has all these things. I have had NUMEROUS customers
call up with problems using named events incorrectly, especially lately
for
whatever reasons. Its easy to get wrong, and once wrong it may not show
up
at runtime for months. I actually had a customer that didn’t see a
problem
for weeks at a stretch, and out of the blue the driver would crash. It
was
a timing issue between the app going away, and the driver signalling the
event. That says to me, avoid the danger.My personal $0.02.
–
Bill McKenzie