X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Date:	Tue, 2 Dec 2008 15:04:41 +0100
From:	Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Avoid duplicate names in /proc/registry (which may crash find) ?
Message-ID:	<20081202140441.GN12905@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<4934461E DOT 5040708 AT t-online DOT de> <20081202120840 DOT GM12905 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <1L7VRx-1n5Cvw0 AT fwd08 DOT aul DOT t-online DOT de>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<1L7VRx-1n5Cvw0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09)
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Dec  2 14:38, Christian Franke wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > - Do we really need d_type support in the registry?  How often is that
> > actually used?
> > 
> 
> /proc/registry is probably rarely used, so d_type support is not
> important.
> But adding it would be trivial and the effect is significant:
> Speed up of  "oldfind" (which does not crash :-) is >= 2.

Right.  Just send it to cygwin-patches.

> [...]
> > - /proc/registry is a convenience for reading the registry.  Due to
> > some funny definitions of the registry it's not a full solution.  You
> > can't write this way, you can't even access the "(Default)" key
> > values.
> 
> Access to (Default) works for me with "/proc/registry/.../key/@"

Unfortunately you can create a parallel value or key called @.  Even
both.  Back to start? :)

> > I personally don't worry if some border cases don't work.  For the
> > border cases and for the full access we have regtool.
> > 
> > Having said that, I really don't know what's the best solution for
> > these problems would be.  None of the above ideas are very attractive.
> > For instance, in idea 1, the path would actually be
> > 
> > /proc/registry/HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE.key/SOFTWARE.key/Cygwin.key/blub.val
> 
> or:
> 
> 3.  Add an extension (describing its type) to value only:
> 
> /proc/registry/HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/SOFTWARE/Cygwin/blub.type
> 
> But then a possible "somekey.type" should be escaped ...

Yep, never ending story...

> > Shouldn't we rather defer these border cases to regtool?
> 
> Yes, further enhancements to /proc/registry are probably not worth the
> effort.
> 
> Hmm... "/proc/registry/..." pathnames as an alternative for the
> KEY/VALUE parameters of regtool would allow to use shell tab-completion
> and therefore enhance usability (?).

Hmm... that sounds like a good idea to me.  That would probably actually
enhance usablilty.  Feel free to hack away on regtool.


Thanks,
Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -