4 ms·

Quoted in the article: > xCurl differs from libCurl in that xCurl is implemented on top of WinHttp and automatically follows all the extra Microsoft Game Devel

Quoted in the article: > xCurl differs from libCurl in that xCurl is implemented on top of WinHttp and automatically follows all the extra Microsoft Game Development Kit (GDK) requirements and best practices. While libCurl itself doesn’t meet the security requirements for the Microsoft Game Development Kit (GDK) console platform, use xCurl to maintain your same libCurl HTTP implementation across all platforms while changing only one header include and library linkage.

pavlov 3y ago
Yet the author of the article (and curl itself) seems to think it's a fork: "With large invasive changes of this kind we can certainly hope that the team making it has invested time and spent serious effort on additional testing, both before release and ongoing." "...since I can’t find the source code I cannot really get a grip of exactly how much and how invasive Microsoft has patched this." It's not a patch of libcurl if they just implement a mostly compatible API from scratch.
- hobofan 3y ago
  The presence of the license strongly suggests that it's a fork. "Fork" and "API compatible wrapper" are also not two mutually exclusive things. Often, one of the easiest ways to build an API compatible wrapper is to start by forking the original project, scoop out the internals and replace them with what you are trying to wrap, and then discard all the dangling code (e.g. features that you couldn't wire up because your custom internals don't support it).
  - pavlov 3y ago
    > ”The presence of the license strongly suggests that it's a fork.” It could just mean that Microsoft copied over the header file from libcurl without using any of the implementation.
    - jeremyjh 3y ago
      This was my assumption reading it; it very nearly has to be exactly that to work as described by Microsoft. Which IMO makes all this a complete nothing burger.

pavlov 3y ago

Yet the author of the article (and curl itself) seems to think it's a fork: "With large invasive changes of this kind we can certainly hope that the team making it has invested time and spent serious effort on additional testing, both before release and ongoing." "...since I can’t find the source code I cannot really get a grip of exactly how much and how invasive Microsoft has patched this." It's not a patch of libcurl if they just implement a mostly compatible API from scratch.

hobofan 3y ago
The presence of the license strongly suggests that it's a fork. "Fork" and "API compatible wrapper" are also not two mutually exclusive things. Often, one of the easiest ways to build an API compatible wrapper is to start by forking the original project, scoop out the internals and replace them with what you are trying to wrap, and then discard all the dangling code (e.g. features that you couldn't wire up because your custom internals don't support it).
- pavlov 3y ago
  > ”The presence of the license strongly suggests that it's a fork.” It could just mean that Microsoft copied over the header file from libcurl without using any of the implementation.
  - jeremyjh 3y ago
    This was my assumption reading it; it very nearly has to be exactly that to work as described by Microsoft. Which IMO makes all this a complete nothing burger.