New acticle on CodeProject

New acticle on CodeProject

Post by Henk Devo » Sun, 01 Jun 2003 08:02:49



Many of you have been waiting a long time for this:
http://www.codeproject.com/useritems/foldertasks.asp
"Namespace Extensions: The Tasks Band Disclosed"

--
Henk Devos
www.whirlingdervishes.com

 
 
 

New acticle on CodeProject

Post by Timo Kunz » Sun, 01 Jun 2003 10:25:11


Great job! Many thanks!
I still wonder when Microsoft will recognize that it's probably better for
them if THEY document such things instead of you. <G> On the other hand, if
you document it, we can be sure, that we'll get real docs and not just some
one-liners.

Best regards!
Timo
--
www.TimoSoft-Software.de Stop TCPA & NGSCB (a. k. a. Palladium)

 
 
 

New acticle on CodeProject

Post by mike » Mon, 02 Jun 2003 00:43:20



Quote:> Great job! Many thanks!
> I still wonder when Microsoft will recognize that it's probably better for
> them if THEY document such things instead of you. <G> On the other hand, if
> you document it, we can be sure, that we'll get real docs and not just some
> one-liners.

They are required to document these shell api's. See

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/30928.html

 
 
 

New acticle on CodeProject

Post by David Lincol » Mon, 02 Jun 2003 00:53:52


They are required to document these shell api's...

I wouldn't hold your breath as long as Bush is in the White House... they don't seem too interested in holding MS to any kind of
mildly strict settlement.

As far as I can tell, 99% of the "newly" documented API stuff has simply been officially duplicating what people like Henk have
already sniffed out and unofficially made public.

I reckon shell programming will remain for those with lots of time & good nerves!

Keep up the great work, Henk, Jim et al!

 
 
 

New acticle on CodeProject

Post by mike » Mon, 02 Jun 2003 04:29:09



Quote:> They are required to document these shell api's...

> I wouldn't hold your breath as long as Bush is in the White House...
> they don't seem too interested in holding MS to any kind of
> mildly strict settlement.

> As far as I can tell, 99% of the "newly" documented API stuff
> has simply been officially duplicating what people like Henk have
> already sniffed out and unofficially made public.

> I reckon shell programming will remain for those with lots of
> time & good nerves!

> Keep up the great work, Henk, Jim et al!

Have a look at "Settlement Program Interfaces"

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dnapiover/html/api-overview.asp

 
 
 

New acticle on CodeProject

Post by Jim Barr » Wed, 04 Jun 2003 03:31:25



> They are required to document these shell api's.

I'm not sure that they are. The antitrust settlement only requires Microsoft to disclose APIs that are used by Microsoft "middleware" products, distributed separately to Windows. By not documenting the Common Tasks interface, I suppose Microsoft is tacitly claiming that only Windows itself uses the interface. I have no idea whether the settlement covers future Microsoft middleware, or just that in existence at the time of the settlement.

BTW try the following quote under "API Disclosures" for a good laugh:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/legal/aug02/08-05settlementmilesto...

"All have been documented to the same level of detail Microsoft uses for standard Windows APIs."

Yeah, right!

--
Jim Barry
MVP, Windows SDK

 
 
 

New acticle on CodeProject

Post by Henk Devo » Wed, 04 Jun 2003 04:58:42


I would say the zip folders are in this category.
This is actually a separate application bundled with Windows from XP on.
Furthermore this is an application that is directly competing with many
other applications.
It is possible to replace this application with a different one.
But i am not a lawyer, and i am not involved in any anti-Microsoft cases or
anything like it.
I just want to create great products myself and help other people do the
same, which is what this newsgroup is all about.



> They are required to document these shell api's.

I'm not sure that they are. The antitrust settlement only requires Microsoft
to disclose APIs that are used by Microsoft "middleware" products,
distributed separately to Windows. By not documenting the Common Tasks
interface, I suppose Microsoft is tacitly claiming that only Windows itself
uses the interface. I have no idea whether the settlement covers future
Microsoft middleware, or just that in existence at the time of the
settlement.

BTW try the following quote under "API Disclosures" for a good laugh:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/legal/aug02/08-05settlementmilesto...

"All have been documented to the same level of detail Microsoft uses for
standard Windows APIs."

Yeah, right!

--
Jim Barry
MVP, Windows SDK

 
 
 

New acticle on CodeProject

Post by Timo Kunz » Wed, 04 Jun 2003 05:47:24


Quote:>>"All have been documented to the same level of detail Microsoft uses for

standard Windows APIs."
Well, if this is true and the programmers of IE and Windows Explorer and so
on really just work with those one-liners, then I finally know why Microsoft
software needs all those hot fixes, patches and service packs... ;)
The best evidence AGAINST this statement is that such things like IUIElement
are not documented, but the zip NSE seems to use it. Also Windows Media
Player 9 can be minimized to a taskbar band. An employee of Microsoft said
this is done with a lot of COM. He might be right, but I doubt that this is
possible with documented stuff only.
Okay, one could say that you still can get debug symbols and try to get
details by yourself (as Henk does), but I want to see those people at
Microsoft spending weeks and months just to get some simple interfaces and
flags.
On the other hand, it makes somehow fun to get undocumented stuff working -
at least if you're a hobby programmer. Companies don't have time for such
things.

It will be interesting to see how good Longhorn's NGSCB and DRM features
will be documented. I bet we'll get very good docs for this, so everyone can
use it and move the power from the users to the US-American computer
industry (and probably also to the government). Good to know that at least
in Germany forces against TCPA/TCG and NGSCB are growing and also reached
our government.

Timo
--
www.TimoSoft-Software.de Stop TCPA & NGSCB (a. k. a. Palladium)

 
 
 

New acticle on CodeProject

Post by Jim Barr » Wed, 04 Jun 2003 06:04:27



> I would say the zip folders are in this category.
> This is actually a separate application bundled with Windows from XP on.
> Furthermore this is an application that is directly competing with many
> other applications.

I completely agree; I'm just saying MS could argue that Zip Folders is technically part of the OS because it comes with it. But then again, I suppose this is really no different than Internet Explorer, Outlook Express et al, which seem to be classed as middleware by the settlement.

--
Jim Barry
MVP, Windows SDK

 
 
 

New acticle on CodeProject

Post by Henk Devo » Wed, 04 Jun 2003 06:56:48


BTW see this thread too:
http://groups.google.be/groups?hl=nl&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=oprpx0kgmfm...
0news-text.blueyonder.co.uk&rnum=7
I am wondering where this guy gets the credibility to back his statements
up?


Quote:> >>"All have been documented to the same level of detail Microsoft uses for
> standard Windows APIs."
> Well, if this is true and the programmers of IE and Windows Explorer and
so
> on really just work with those one-liners, then I finally know why
Microsoft
> software needs all those hot fixes, patches and service packs... ;)
> The best evidence AGAINST this statement is that such things like
IUIElement
> are not documented, but the zip NSE seems to use it. Also Windows Media
> Player 9 can be minimized to a taskbar band. An employee of Microsoft said
> this is done with a lot of COM. He might be right, but I doubt that this
is
> possible with documented stuff only.
> Okay, one could say that you still can get debug symbols and try to get
> details by yourself (as Henk does), but I want to see those people at
> Microsoft spending weeks and months just to get some simple interfaces and
> flags.
> On the other hand, it makes somehow fun to get undocumented stuff
working -
> at least if you're a hobby programmer. Companies don't have time for such
> things.

> It will be interesting to see how good Longhorn's NGSCB and DRM features
> will be documented. I bet we'll get very good docs for this, so everyone
can
> use it and move the power from the users to the US-American computer
> industry (and probably also to the government). Good to know that at least
> in Germany forces against TCPA/TCG and NGSCB are growing and also reached
> our government.

> Timo
> --
> www.TimoSoft-Software.de Stop TCPA & NGSCB (a. k. a. Palladium)

 
 
 

New acticle on CodeProject

Post by Jim Barr » Thu, 05 Jun 2003 01:48:03


Talking of which...

Microsoft to drop standalone IE
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-1011859.html

--
Jim Barry
MVP, Windows SDK

 
 
 

New acticle on CodeProject

Post by Timo Kunz » Thu, 05 Jun 2003 03:41:02


Quote:>>Microsoft to drop standalone IE

Well, let them do... Opera and Mozilla become better and better. And IE6
will be enough for at least another year I think.
It's funny: In the 90's people complained about IE bundled with Windows,
although they still could use the browser of their choice. Now you'll have
to buy a new Windows to get a new version of IE (which IMO is still the best
browser).
--
www.TimoSoft-Software.de Stop TCPA & NGSCB (a. k. a. Palladium)