This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-patches
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
RE: [Patch] regtool: Add load/unload commands and --binary option
- From: Igor Peshansky <pechtcha at cs dot nyu dot edu>
- To: Dave Korn <dave dot korn at artimi dot com>
- Cc: cygwin-patches at cygwin dot com
- Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 11:09:59 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: RE: [Patch] regtool: Add load/unload commands and --binary option
- References: <041901c63ed8$d10bb020$a501a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
- Reply-to: cygwin-patches at cygwin dot com
On Fri, 3 Mar 2006, Dave Korn wrote:
> > That's actually an interesting idea. I was always thinking along
> > the lines of using POSIX file types (plain,socket,pipe,...).
> >
> > What if a key "foo.sz" really exists and somebody wants to create
> > a registry key "foo"?
>
> No problem. If you want to create foo, you write to "foo.sz". If you
> want to create foo.sz, you have to write to "foo.sz.sz". Unless of
> course foo.sz is a dword, in which case you'd write to "foo.sz.dw", etc
> etc.
>
> > When reading "foo", which file is meant?
>
> There can only be one at a time, because in the registry there can
> only be one value with the name foo, regardless of what type it has.
>
> > What's the order of checking suffixes?
>
> I'm proposing that the suffix is only used when creating or writing to
> the file, to determine the type, but the suffix is stripped off for
> generating the actual name, and is not shown in dir listings, and is not
> required to open the file for read.
>
> > When somebody writes to a key "foo", what's the default suffix, er...,
> > key type? Or does that fail with an error message?
>
> Either; I haven't a strong opinion on the matter.
Now, what if you write a file as foo.sz, and then write it as foo.dw. Do
we change the key type? Do we fail with ENOENT? What is the semantics
there?
Also, this suffix idea reminds me more of versions on VMS or streams on
NT, rather than real extensions. I wonder if we could/should use "foo:dw"
or "foo:sz", rather than using the extension... IOW, "foo.sz" might be a
valid filename, but "foo:sz" already cannot be on certain filesystems...
The question about using two different filetypes in a row still applies,
though.
Igor
--
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
|\ _,,,---,,_ pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu | igor@watson.ibm.com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' old name: Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in
that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"