> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Corinna Vinschen
> Sent: 06 October 2004 13:06
> On Oct 6 13:52, Rainer Hochreiter wrote:
> > On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 12:17:49 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > Erm?!? Of course you should write directly to the
> registry. That's how
> > > writing the description field is implemented to stay NT4
> compatible. So
> > > just copy the behaviour for writing the actions parameter.
> >
> > but who guarantees that writing directly to the registry will be
> > compliant to upcoming windows version?
>
> Nobody. But in that case we change cygrunsrv to write the parameters
> differently into the registry if newer NT versions require that, no?
>
Well, of course, if you're using the API routine rather than going behind
its back, then when M$ change the registry format, the code will continue to
work....... that is the whole idea for an API.
> - Please don't use ChangeServiceConfig2. It will break running cygrunsrv
> on NT4. That's the reason the description is written directly to the
> registry instead of using ChangeServiceConfig2.
See, I think that the best generic solution to this situation is to write
code that dynamically links to ChangeServiceConfig2 if available, and falls
back to writing hard-formatted registry keys/values only if that is not
available. That's both backwardly *and* forwardly compatible, as opposed to
the current solution, which is fragile.
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
--
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/
