> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:14 PM, U.Nakamura <usa / garbagecollect.jp> wrote:
> 
> > Hello,
> >
> > In message "[ruby-core:25883] Re: Fate of Win32API.rb?"
> >     on Oct.01,2009 22:24:04, <jon.forums / gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Is it valid to assume that registry.rb, sspi.rb, resolv.rb from
> > ext/dl/win32/lib/win32 will remain in 2.0 as they (except for sspi.rb which
> > currently requires Win32API) all "require dl/import" rather than Win32API?
> >
> > I don't know why you stick to not "dl" but "dl/import".
> > Anyway, those libraries which require "Win32API" are listed on
> > my To-Do list.
> >
> >
> I don't understand your response.  My apologies if I asked an unclear
> question and I will try to rephrase.  If my question is still unclear,
> someone fluent in both Japanese and English please clarify.
> 
> In the current snapshot.tar.bz2, registry.rb and sspi.rb have been changed
> to use "require dl/import" rather than "require Win32API" as in 1.9.1p243.
> I obviously did not make these changes.
> 
> Since both registry.rb and sspi.rb no longer require Win32API, is the
> current plan to keep the 1.9.2 versions of registry.rb and sspi.rb as part
> of 2.0's stdlib?
> 
> Thank you,
> Jon


Based on the responses so far, my understanding is that:

1) Win32API.rb remains deprecated in 1.9.x and will be removed in 2.0
2) 1.9.2's registry.rb and resolve.rb are planned to be supported in 2.0
3) sspi.rb refactoring to use DL is on a To-Do list; 1.9.2 and 2.0 support status unknown

If correct, this level of detail was what I was looking for.

Thanks, Jon