David Lee Lambert wrote:
On Thursday 16 June 2005 11:20 pm, you wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 22:22:56 +0200, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Actually the current method is probably the fastest for everything
except the initial read.
The only reason that the current method is fast is because we're loading
the entire registry into memory. As stated in Bugzilla, this is fine for
small registries, but the author of the bug has noted wineserver allocated
up to 30MB when wine initiates JUST for the registry!
How do you propose to keep track of multiple sources of the registry data? At
one time Wine supported system-wide registry files as well as per-user ones,
and some people would like to see that again.
I'm not certain what you mean by multple sources of the registry
- but if you're clearifying yourself with your second sentence here, I'm
sure it I could bring back that feature if I get the opportunity to and
allow system registry files as well as user registry files.
Using BerkeleyDB to access the registry would provide the kind of
random-access that we need for such a large amount of information
Samba already uses something called 'TDB', and it's been suggested that the
two projects could share a case-insensitive-filename layer based on it;
could you look into using that?
I've not heard of this 'TDB' before, nor do I know anything about
that situation, however, again - given the opportunity - I will look
into whatever the community wants before I make any decisions about how
the project will be done.
- It
would also provide us with a quicker and easier way to search through the
registry - so we could finally implement the Find feature in wine's
regedit without much effort ( Not that it couldn't be done as is, but
things would definitely be easier ).
This could only be done at the expense of several times increase in on-disk
storage, and would actually not be used very much.
I'm not certain you're correct there, and I've been frustrated
before when wine's regedit has that menu item disabled when I wanted to
use it lol :)
At any rate, again, I'm not saying one way or the other about how
this is going to work yet (if at all). I'll look into it.
A more useful enhancement would be to support PCRE syntax for
find-and-replace, or multiple views of data, or version-control of the
registry... in fact, there are Windows programs that do all that, and all
they require is a good, stable, quick implementation of the registry calls,
which is what Wine provides.
I agree with you there, that would be a nice feature to have -
especially if the registry goes binary. . . I'm sure there are some
people that would normally use techniques like that with their current
registry files. . .
Again, however, I'm not doing anything except research until
Alexandre gives me the 'go ahead'.
Thanks everyone who has been throwing out ideas, they're helpful and
extremely appreciated.
--Brad DeMorrow
