initializing registry (was: Re: config files on Windows)

On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 01:05:02PM -0600, Karl Fogel wrote:
>...
> If all Windows users think the Registry is sufficient, then I don't
> see much point going through contortions to figure out all possible
> for a file-based configuration area.

Sounds like consensus is to support registry *and* files (with files
overriding the registry).

>...
> consistency we have when answering the question "Where are my config
> files under Win32?"!)

See the comment about the API for this, with the redist DLL.

> On a semi-unrelated note, the Registry needs to get initialized at
> install time (or run-time, though install makes more sense); Mike
> Pilato and I are working on that.

If you assumine registry followed by files, then you don't have to
initialize the registry. IMO, it would be fantastic if we could avoid
touching the registry (Jay's "xcopy install"). You'll understand just how
cool avoiding the registry is, if you've ever downloaded PuTTY and just
started running it.

[ installers generally do two things: place files in the system and set
  registry entries; assuming you don't scattershot files across the system,
  and you don't need registry entries, then an install is simply "unzip this
  wherever you want" ]

The registry is for fancy-shmancy config management tools. There is an
argument that we could simply avoid the registry altogether, and tell the
tools to edit .conf files instead.

[ and the argument about the Badness(tm) of writing custom parser/writers
  for the .conf file is bogus; if an app is going to manipulate our registry
  entries, then they are writing custom code in the first place (although it
  is easier to manipulate the registry than a file (.ini or xml)) ]

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org