On Saturday 27 December 2003 09:23 am, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> Mike Hearn wrote:
> >This implementation is a little inefficient but without using a random
> >access binary db as Windows does (which I am not going to advocate) it's
> >the best we can do.
>
> Ok, I'm going to be flamed for this, but I'm going to go ahead and ask.
>
> This is a request to understand, not a suggestion (yet?).
> Why not use a general purpose DB system? (postgresql, mysql, whatever)
> After all, the registry is just a tree shaped database. We can do that
> using standard SQL, and fall back to our current method if a proper DB
> is not found.
>
> Shachar
The SQL thing is not an inherently bad idea, but why /not/ implement the NT
"hive" format (the random access binary db mentioned above) instead? This
might involve some ugly reverse engineering, but I think this would allow
registries saved out via Reg{Save,Restore}Key to work.... in fact, doesn't
wine already read this format when using a "Windows" installation? Some
months ago I tried to run an application I wrote for my employer, which used
those API's to import prefabricated chunks of registry stored in this format,
but it failed to read them in.
I guess this is another "hey, somebody other than me should do a crapload of
work" type of post... but I thought I'd mention it to remind everyone that
there is a Windows-API-compatibility justification suggesting that approach.
--
gmt
"It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States,
derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority
of the people themselves. �The act, therefore, establishing the
Constitution, will not be a NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act." --James
Madison, Federalist No. 39
