Re: Ini File vs Registry
- From: Daniel James <wastebasket@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 15:32:59 +0100
In article news:<OIHvFviGJHA.4836@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Giovanni
Dicanio wrote:
I think that the registry is an important and good tool e.g. to store
the association between a COM component GUID and the path where the
COM component can be loaded by the OS. This way the registry kind of
works as a centralized database for the OS.
Exactly ... it's a centralized database *for the OS*.
Registration of COM components is an OS function and has to be done
centrally ... and it'd be damned inefficient if every COM component in
the system was registered by writing a new section in system.ini. The
registry is a good solution for that problem.
It's much less clear than any application program needs to have its
configuration stored centrally. Indeed, applications that can be run
from removable devices (USB sticks being a particular case in point)
benefit from keeping their configuration OUT of the registry.
The U3 system has to jump through a lot of hoops to provide its own
pseudo-registry for applications running from the stick, none of which
would be necessary if the applications were written to use configuration
files (on the stick) instead of the registry.
Cheers,
Daniel.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Ini File vs Registry
- From: Joseph M . Newcomer
- Re: Ini File vs Registry
- From: Giovanni Dicanio
- Re: Ini File vs Registry
- References:
- Ini File vs Registry
- From: Cameron_C
- Re: Ini File vs Registry
- From: .rhavin grobert
- Re: Ini File vs Registry
- From: Joseph M . Newcomer
- Re: Ini File vs Registry
- From: BobF
- Re: Ini File vs Registry
- From: David Ching
- Re: Ini File vs Registry
- From: Giovanni Dicanio
- Ini File vs Registry
- Prev by Date: Re: Ini File vs Registry
- Next by Date: Re: Ini File vs Registry
- Previous by thread: Re: Ini File vs Registry
- Next by thread: Re: Ini File vs Registry
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading