> 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.
Well, no, I wouldn’t use this method. Well maybe for the multiple clients
that only wait on the event, I might, and granted its good to know how this
works and when to use what I suppose.
BUT, overall, I try, even in my own code, to stick with the most straight
forward and easy to get right solution, all other important things, like
performance, being equal. People get this particular mechanism wrong ALL
THE TIME. Just search any of the kernel newsgroups. So, MS should if they
haven’t, recommend people not do this. Certainly if you have to use an
undocumented function MS is by default recommending you not do this. At
least that is what I have always understood Microsoft’s position to be.
Someone from MS please correct me if I am wrong.
Not trying to get on a soap box here really, just trying to say I prefer the
KISS principle in this case.
–
Bill McKenzie
“Michal Vodicka” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>
> 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 level
> >
> > Right, 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
> >
>
>