/dev/registry

/dev/registry

[Chris January]

How about adding a /dev/registry fhandler to Cygwin? Registry keys would be
directories and values in the registry files. I'm willing to try coding this
if people think it's a good idea. It allows shell scripts to easily access
registry keys as well as programs.

 Regards
Chris

Re: /dev/registry

[Gerald Villemure]

/proc/registry/*

is a GREAT idea!

Gerald


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: /dev/registry

[Daniel Adams]

/proc/registry/*

is a GREAT idea!

Sincerely,
Daniel Adams - dpa3@dana.ucc.nau.edu
http://dana.ucc.nau.edu/~dpa3

  1 Peter 4:10 (NIV)-  Each one should use whatever gift he has received to
serve others, faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms.


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: /dev/registry

[Charles Wilson]

Daniel Adams wrote:

> /proc/registry/*
> 
> is a GREAT idea!


Okay folks, enough with the "me toos".  Suffice it to say that everybody 
thinks this is a wonderful idea.  Not surprisingly, the suggestion of a 
/dev/registry or /proc/registry HAS been made before.  And everybody 
thought it was a great idea then, too.

There's only one problem: back then, after the initial round of 
self-congratulation and "great idea -- me too-ism" -- nobody did the 
work.  I suspect the same thing will be true this time, as well.

Somebody please astonish me and provide the code.

--Chuck

(*) P.S. "back then" somebody mentioned a few problems with file-system 
access to registry entries:  how do you deal with the various types -- 
DWORD, BINARY, STRING, (and the other types that AREN'T accessible via 
regedit...)  Just something to keep in mind, if somebody actually tries 
to write some code for this...





--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: /dev/registry

[Christopher Faylor]

On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 02:15:50PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Daniel Adams wrote:
>
>>/proc/registry/*
>>
>>is a GREAT idea!
>
>Okay folks, enough with the "me toos".  Suffice it to say that
>everybody thinks this is a wonderful idea.  Not surprisingly, the
>suggestion of a /dev/registry or /proc/registry HAS been made before.
>And everybody thought it was a great idea then, too.
>
>There's only one problem: back then, after the initial round of
>self-congratulation and "great idea -- me too-ism" -- nobody did the
>work.  I suspect the same thing will be true this time, as well.
>
>Somebody please astonish me and provide the code.
>
>--Chuck
>
>(*) P.S.  "back then" somebody mentioned a few problems with
>file-system access to registry entries: how do you deal with the
>various types -- DWORD, BINARY, STRING, (and the other types that
>AREN'T accessible via regedit...) Just something to keep in mind, if
>somebody actually tries to write some code for this...

Thanks, Chuck.

Actually someone (Egor?) did write code and, you're right, about the problems
and the "me toos".

Just to be clear /dev/registry is wrong for the same reason as we used
/cygdrive/a rather than /dev/a.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: /dev/registry

[roland]

> (*) P.S. "back then" somebody mentioned a few problems with
file-system
> access to registry entries:  how do you deal with the various types --
> DWORD, BINARY, STRING, (and the other types that AREN'T accessible via
> regedit...)  Just something to keep in mind, if somebody actually tries
> to write some code for this...

File permissions could handle this?  Maybe something similar to cygwin's
symlinks?

*shrug*
-rgm


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: /dev/registry

[Gerald Villemure]

> /proc/registry/*
>
> is a GREAT idea!

> (*) P.S. "back then" somebody mentioned a few problems with file-system
> access to registry entries:  how do you deal with the various types --
> DWORD, BINARY, STRING, (and the other types that AREN'T accessible
> via regedit...)

Why not use a file name extention (vary microsoft like thing to do)

First lets use standard Root key Name Abbreviations
HKEY_CURRENT_USER        HKCU
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE    HKLM
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT        HKCR
HKEY_USERS                         HKEY_USERS
HKEY_CURRENT_CONFIG  HKEY_CURRENT_CONFIG

As for value data types, we could use:
REG_SZ                     .sz
REG_DWORD          .dword
REG_BINARY          .binary
REG_EXPAND_SZ  .expand
REG_MULTI_SZ      .mutli

So this:
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run]
"WinVNC"="data goes here"

would become:
/proc/registry/HKLM/SOFTWARE/Microsoft/Windows/CurrentVersion/Run/WinVNC.sz

Good or bad idea?

One more things to be carefull of, is the use of roming profiles.... HKCU
can change.

Gerald


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: /dev/registry

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 08:21:05AM +0100, Gerald Villemure wrote:
> > /proc/registry/*
> >
> > is a GREAT idea!
> 
> > (*) P.S. "back then" somebody mentioned a few problems with file-system
> > access to registry entries:  how do you deal with the various types --
> > DWORD, BINARY, STRING, (and the other types that AREN'T accessible
> > via regedit...)
> 
> Why not use a file name extention (vary microsoft like thing to do)
> 
> First lets use standard Root key Name Abbreviations
> HKEY_CURRENT_USER        HKCU
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE    HKLM
> HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT        HKCR
> HKEY_USERS                         HKEY_USERS
> HKEY_CURRENT_CONFIG  HKEY_CURRENT_CONFIG
> 
> As for value data types, we could use:
> REG_SZ                     .sz
> REG_DWORD          .dword
> REG_BINARY          .binary
> REG_EXPAND_SZ  .expand
> REG_MULTI_SZ      .mutli
> 
> So this:
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run]
> "WinVNC"="data goes here"
> 
> would become:
> /proc/registry/HKLM/SOFTWARE/Microsoft/Windows/CurrentVersion/Run/WinVNC.sz
> 
> Good or bad idea?

Good.  Now you just have to implement /proc/registry in Cygwin.

Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer                                mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: /dev/registry

[Greg Mosier]

From: "Gerald Villemure" <GVillemure@ik.ca>
Subject: Re: /dev/registry


> So this:
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run]
> "WinVNC"="data goes here"
>
> would become:
>
/proc/registry/HKLM/SOFTWARE/Microsoft/Windows/CurrentVersion/Run/WinVNC.sz
>
> Good or bad idea?
>
> One more things to be carefull of, is the use of roming profiles.... HKCU
> can change.

Maybe I've missed something here, but are we talking about copying the
registry to hard drive, or rather providing a 'pathed' means just to read
the registry?  I'm still a newbie in this area, but to me, it would seem
that if it's not copied to the HD then we don't need an extention to
indicate key type, but that those things that called it should know, and/or
check, what type of key they were getting the information on.

Just my two cents,
Greg



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: /dev/registry

[Michael A Chase]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Mosier" <Greg.Mosier@USA.Net>
To: <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 14:41
Subject: Re: /dev/registry


> Maybe I've missed something here, but are we talking about copying the
> registry to hard drive, or rather providing a 'pathed' means just to read
> the registry?  I'm still a newbie in this area, but to me, it would seem
> that if it's not copied to the HD then we don't need an extention to
> indicate key type, but that those things that called it should know,
and/or
> check, what type of key they were getting the information on.

It would require a new driver similar to the one (ones?) that manages
filesystems, but I would expect it to walk through the registry instead of
directories.  I think adding the type information to the name is just asking
for ambiguties, but it's really up to whoever implements it.  Using the name
to indicate type does minimize the deviation from the file I/O paradigm
though.

The trick at this point is finding someone interested enough to write it.
--
Mac :})
** I normally forward private questions to the appropriate mail list. **
Ask Smarter: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.htm
Give a hobbit a fish and he eats fish for a day.
Give a hobbit a ring and he eats fish for an age.



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: /dev/registry

[Lapo Luchini]

> The trick at this point is finding someone interested enough to write it.

Nobody seems to notice that the original message writer actually proposed
himself to do the work... now let's only hope he really does it ;)

> Subject: /dev/registry
> Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 15:42:55 -0000
> From: "Chris January"
> [...]I'm willing to try coding this if people think it's a good idea.[...]

--
Lapo 'Raist' Luchini
lapo@lapo.it (PGP & X.509 keys available)
http://www.lapo.it (ICQ UIN: 529796)



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: /dev/registry

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 02:09:27PM +0100, Lapo Luchini wrote:
>> The trick at this point is finding someone interested enough to write it.
>
>Nobody seems to notice that the original message writer actually proposed
>himself to do the work... now let's only hope he really does it ;)

Let's also hope that he looks over previous discussion of the topic and
that he has scrutinized the Contributing link at http://cygwin.com/ .

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: /dev/registry

[Ralf Habacker]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com [mailto:cygwin-owner@cygwin.com]On Behalf
> Of Christopher Faylor
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 6:29 PM
> To: cygwin@cygwin.com
> Subject: Re: /dev/registry
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 02:09:27PM +0100, Lapo Luchini wrote:
> >> The trick at this point is finding someone interested enough to write it.
> >
> >Nobody seems to notice that the original message writer actually proposed
> >himself to do the work... now let's only hope he really does it ;)
>
> Let's also hope that he looks over previous discussion of the topic and
> that he has scrutinized the Contributing link at http://cygwin.com/ .
>
If anyone of you was by the army, how many shots you have needed to hit the middle of target ? Does anyone of you
are real thinking, that this is the right way to motivate people working on an open source projects like cygwin ?
Does this project does not depends on new idea ?

Ralf


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: /dev/registry

[Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)]

At 04:44 PM 2/5/2002, Ralf Habacker wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com [mailto:cygwin-owner@cygwin.com]On Behalf
> > Of Christopher Faylor
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 6:29 PM
> > To: cygwin@cygwin.com
> > Subject: Re: /dev/registry
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 02:09:27PM +0100, Lapo Luchini wrote:
> > >> The trick at this point is finding someone interested enough to write it.
> > >
> > >Nobody seems to notice that the original message writer actually proposed
> > >himself to do the work... now let's only hope he really does it ;)
> >
> > Let's also hope that he looks over previous discussion of the topic and
> > that he has scrutinized the Contributing link at http://cygwin.com/ .
> >
>If anyone of you was by the army, how many shots you have needed to hit the middle of target ? Does anyone of you
>are real thinking, that this is the right way to motivate people working on an open source projects like cygwin ?
>Does this project does not depends on new idea ?


Sure.  It depends on new ideas.  It depends more on people to actually
implement them.  Since this thread has already pointed out that 
discussion of topics is far more prevalent on this list than actual
contributions, I think you should interpret any subtext of this email
exchange as a healthy bit of skepticism that the result of this discussion 
will result in a real contribution.  Now's the time for all those 
interested to prove the old skeptics wrong! ;-)  In this case, it is 
clear that Chris January's stated intent is to implement this feature.
It's worthwhile to reiterate that this topic was brought up in that 
context.

Just to set the record straight, if you review this email thread, you'll
notice it's been pointed out that this is not a new idea.  It's come up 
and been discussed quite thoroughly before on this list, in case anyone
is interested in reviewing that discussion.  I, for one, am quite 
interested to see what Chris creates.  I expect others on this list will 
be too.  Go Chris! :-)



Larry Hall                              lhall@rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      http://www.rfk.com
838 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746                     (508) 893-9889 - FAX


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: /dev/registry

[Michael A Chase]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralf Habacker" <Ralf.Habacker@freenet.de>
To: <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 13:44
Subject: RE: /dev/registry


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com [mailto:cygwin-owner@cygwin.com]On Behalf
> > Of Christopher Faylor
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 6:29 PM
> > To: cygwin@cygwin.com
> > Subject: Re: /dev/registry
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 02:09:27PM +0100, Lapo Luchini wrote:
> > >> The trick at this point is finding someone interested enough to write
it.
> > >
> > >Nobody seems to notice that the original message writer actually
proposed
> > >himself to do the work... now let's only hope he really does it ;)
> >
> > Let's also hope that he looks over previous discussion of the topic and
> > that he has scrutinized the Contributing link at http://cygwin.com/ .
> >
> If anyone of you was by the army, how many shots you have needed to hit
the middle of target ? Does anyone of you
> are real thinking, that this is the right way to motivate people working
on an open source projects like cygwin ?
> Does this project does not depends on new idea ?

There are lots of ideas out there as this thread has shown.  The shortage is
people to put them into effect.  Patches and packages are welcome.
--
Mac :})
** I normally forward private questions to the appropriate mail list. **
Ask Smarter: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.htm
Give a hobbit a fish and he eats fish for a day.
Give a hobbit a ring and he eats fish for an age.



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: /dev/registry

[Jon Foster]

Hi,

"Chris January" <chris@atomice.net> wrtote:
> How about adding a /dev/registry fhandler to Cygwin?
> Registry keys would be directories and values in the
> registry files.

UWIN (a commercial alternative to cygwin) has 
something similar.  See
http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/uwin/

They use /reg, but I agree that /dev/registry or
/proc/registry would be better.

Regards,

Jon Foster
--
"The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at 
the ground and miss." - Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

E-mail: jon@jon-foster.co.uk
web: http://www.jon-foster.co.uk/

Re: /dev/registry

[Michael F. March]

This sounds like a GREAT idea to me.


> How about adding a /dev/registry fhandler to Cygwin? Registry keys would
be
> directories and values in the registry files. I'm willing to try coding
this
> if people think it's a good idea. It allows shell scripts to easily access
> registry keys as well as programs.
>

Re: /dev/registry

[Lapo Luchini]

> How about adding a /dev/registry fhandler to Cygwin? Registry keys would be
> directories and values in the registry files. I'm willing to try coding this
> if people think it's a good idea. It allows shell scripts to easily access
> registry keys as well as programs.

Seems good to me, but it seems better as a /proc/registry/(key/)*value (the
first support of cygwin /proc ? would be cool to also add the ordinary stuff,
processor type, memory.. and so on)

--
Lapo 'Raist' Luchini
lapo@lapo.it (PGP & X.509 keys available)
http://www.lapo.it (ICQ UIN: 529796)

RE: /dev/registry

[Gary R. Van Sickle]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com [mailto:cygwin-owner@cygwin.com]On Behalf
> Of Chris January
> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 9:43 AM
> To: cygwin@cygwin.com
> Subject: /dev/registry
>
>
> How about adding a /dev/registry fhandler to Cygwin? Registry keys would be
> directories and values in the registry files. I'm willing to try coding this
> if people think it's a good idea. It allows shell scripts to easily access
> registry keys as well as programs.
>

Well, it looks like I'll be the only one, but this sounds to me like an insanely
*BAD* idea.  It seems to me to be hard enough to keep the Windows registry in
one piece even if you don't dink with it; I shudder to think what horrors await
sombody with fat fingers and an itchy TAB finger (i.e. me):

cat HundredsOfMBsOfCrap > /dev/r[TAB-oops-I-meant...well-something-else-anyway]

I'm trying to think where this would actually be useful, but I'm drawing a
blank.  It seems to me that the registry should have at least a slightly higher
barrier to entry than the command line.

--
Gary R. Van Sickle
Brewer.  Patriot.


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: /dev/registry

[Robert Collins]

===
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary R. Van Sickle" <g.r.vansickle@worldnet.att.net>
> Well, it looks like I'll be the only one, but this sounds to me like
an insanely
> *BAD* idea.  It seems to me to be hard enough to keep the Windows
registry in
> one piece even if you don't dink with it; I shudder to think what
horrors await
> sombody with fat fingers and an itchy TAB finger (i.e. me):
>
> cat HundredsOfMBsOfCrap >
/dev/r[TAB-oops-I-meant...well-something-else-anyway]
>
> I'm trying to think where this would actually be useful, but I'm
drawing a
> blank.  It seems to me that the registry should have at least a
slightly higher
> barrier to entry than the command line.

cat HundredsOfMbsOfCrap > /vmlinuz.
cat HundredsOfMbsOfCrap > /etc/rc0.d/...

Hmm, doesn't seem much different.

Rob



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: /dev/registry

[Gareth Pearce]

> >
> >
> > How about adding a /dev/registry fhandler to Cygwin? Registry keys would 
>be
> > directories and values in the registry files. I'm willing to try coding 
>this
> > if people think it's a good idea. It allows shell scripts to easily 
>access
> > registry keys as well as programs.
> >
>
>Well, it looks like I'll be the only one, but this sounds to me like an 
>insanely
>*BAD* idea.  It seems to me to be hard enough to keep the Windows registry 
>in
>one piece even if you don't dink with it; I shudder to think what horrors 
>await
>sombody with fat fingers and an itchy TAB finger (i.e. me):
>
>cat HundredsOfMBsOfCrap > 
>/dev/r[TAB-oops-I-meant...well-something-else-anyway]
>
>I'm trying to think where this would actually be useful, but I'm drawing a
>blank.  It seems to me that the registry should have at least a slightly 
>higher
>barrier to entry than the command line.
>

umm /dev/registry I am assuming you would think would act like a file? - 
people were suggesing /proc/registry - and as far as I could tell it would 
act like a directory - so your 'cat junk' would just fail with invalid 
target...
maybe you meant cat hundredsofmbofjunk > 
/proc/registry/HKLM/User/Software/Windows/Current/blah/ding/shiznat.sz
?
which i dont see you manageing no matter how hard you try ...

Gareth

>--
>Gary R. Van Sickle
>Brewer.  Patriot.
>
>
>--
>Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
>Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
>Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
>FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
>




_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: /dev/registry

[Barubary]

Why can't this /dev/registry stuff be just an ioctl()?  Open the
/dev/registry node for the appropriate access, then use some ioctl()'s to
read and write it.  Put the /dev/null entry points for the read and write
handlers for /dev/registry and you won't have that accidental corruption
from cat.

By the way, if you're using Cygwin, why can't you just call RegQueryValueExW
and friends yourself?  You're a Win32 process anyway, and no UNIX has such a
thing - don't care about portability.

-- Barubary


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: /dev/registry

[Randall R Schulz]

Barubary,

The motivation for a file-system reflection of the Windows registry is to 
open it up to programs not written in a Windows native language (C, C++, 
VB, etc.). Doing this would give all manner of scripts (shell, Perl, 
Python, TCL, etc.) access to the registry in one fell swoop.

That is one of the beautiful things about the Unix approach of fitting so 
much of a system's facilities into the unified framework of the file 
system. As the discussion has shown, however, if the underlying facility is 
not a good match for Unix's file model, this approach falls down. The 
Windows registry appears to be at the boundary of this issue, given the 
typed nature of its entries. The suffix approach or, perhaps, a terminal 
directory holding entries like ".dword" or ".sz" would presumably suffice.

The suggestion about ioctl() begs the question of where to get the file 
descriptor to which to apply the ioctl() call, and does not open the 
registry to scripting languages that have no direct access to the Cygwin or 
Windows APIs. It does not really simplify the task of adding the ability to 
Cygwin, but obscures the basic access behind the obscure and overloaded 
catch-all interface that is ioctl(). It is true that this would make 
inadvertent registry corruption less likely, but it only by virtue of 
making so much less accessible.

Randall Schulz
Mountain View, CA USA


At 03:23 2002-02-06, Barubary wrote:
>Why can't this /dev/registry stuff be just an ioctl()?  Open the 
>/dev/registry node for the appropriate access, then use some ioctl()'s to 
>read and write it.  Put the /dev/null entry points for the read and write 
>handlers for /dev/registry and you won't have that accidental corruption 
>from cat.
>
>By the way, if you're using Cygwin, why can't you just call 
>RegQueryValueExW and friends yourself?  You're a Win32 process anyway, and 
>no UNIX has such a thing - don't care about portability.
>
>-- Barubary


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: /dev/registry

[Robert Collins]

===
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randall R Schulz" <rrschulz@cris.com>
> The suggestion about ioctl() begs the question of where to get the
file
> descriptor to which to apply the ioctl() call, and does not open the
> registry to scripting languages that have no direct access to the
Cygwin or
> Windows APIs. It does not really simplify the task of adding the
ability to
> Cygwin, but obscures the basic access behind the obscure and
overloaded
> catch-all interface that is ioctl(). It is true that this would make
> inadvertent registry corruption less likely, but it only by virtue of
> making so much less accessible.

Yah. I've been quite on this one. I'd like to point out that Cygwin has
had a patch for /dev/registry some time ago. I support a good
implementation of this, and like the .dword etc suffix idea. I also
think that a mount command should be *required* to active /dev/registry,
and that a read-only and read-write mode should be provided... to allow
for users with different needs, allowing read only requirements to
result in lower risk.

Rob


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: /dev/registry

[Christopher Faylor]

On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 06:43:15PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>
>===
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Randall R Schulz" <rrschulz@cris.com>
>>The suggestion about ioctl() begs the question of where to get the file
>>descriptor to which to apply the ioctl() call, and does not open the
>>registry to scripting languages that have no direct access to the
>>Cygwin or Windows APIs.  It does not really simplify the task of adding
>>the ability to Cygwin, but obscures the basic access behind the obscure
>>and overloaded catch-all interface that is ioctl().  It is true that
>>this would make inadvertent registry corruption less likely, but it
>>only by virtue of making so much less accessible.
>
>Yah.  I've been quite on this one.  I'd like to point out that Cygwin
>has had a patch for /dev/registry some time ago.

I just did a search and I can't see any formal submittal of a patch.

Was this your patch?  I seem to find some reference to this in a
"work in progress" version of your UMSDOS stuff.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: /dev/registry

[Robert Collins]

===
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf@redhat.com>
To: <cygwin@cygwin.com>
> >Yah.  I've been quite on this one.  I'd like to point out that Cygwin
> >has had a patch for /dev/registry some time ago.
>
> I just did a search and I can't see any formal submittal of a patch.
>
> Was this your patch?  I seem to find some reference to this in a
> "work in progress" version of your UMSDOS stuff.

Not mine. And it was never submitted formally. Someone had it floating
on a webpage someone where.

Rob


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/