httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joseph Bridgewater <>
Subject Re: [PATCH] Win32 Script Interpreter Source
Date Fri, 05 Feb 1999 19:26:24 GMT
At 01:32 PM 2/5/99 -0500, wrote:
>Why not go 'the full Monty' here and create an Apache 'Registry_class'
>of configuration variables and then you can encase them in
>#ifdef OS_HAS_REGISTRY cages in the source. Much more generic
>than '#ifdef WIN32
>If Apache is to ever fully support Win32 then it MUST access the
>Registry better and more often ( obviously ). Just because UNIX
>doesn't ( currently ) have a similar thing doesn't mean any OS
>has to be considered 'second class'.

I wholeheartedly disagree!  The registry is, generally speaking, a very
evil thing.  There is no end of stuff put in there that would be much
better left in flat-files for the convenience of the computer owner.

The registry was allegedly designed to solve two problems:
1)  Lack of file security (that was in FAT, remember?  Now with NTFS we
have security, if we choose to contain our NT on an NTFS partition)
2)  Lack of hierarchically structure.

However, it has now becomes this awful mess of garbage that everybody, and
their brother, cousins, cats, dogs, and gold fish stuff junk into because
they can, and have somehow got it into their head that they should.

I strongly urge that Apache *stay-away* from the windows registry as much
as possible.  I can see scanning it to find a script interpreter for
example but most things should _not_ be put in the registry, and nor should
the registry be referred to except when actually necessary.

A couple of things you might ponder:  

What about dual-boot computers?  Whether they boot into Win98 and NT, for
example, or whether they boot into two configurations of NT.  The more the
registry is "relied" upon, the more inconvenient it is to need to be sure
the registry has the right stuff in all boot environments.  If the files
have everything, then the only thing you need to do is make sure the files
are there <g>

Also, if somebody has a very nice Apache configuration on one computer that
they want to clone onto another computer, it is *much* easier to just copy
a bunch of files over and be done with it, then to have to make sure that
some bizarre registry keys and values are there.

For a comparison, consider PERL.  The standard core build under PERL makes
little to no reference to the registry and certainly doesn't require
anything to be there for the program to operate.  Yes I know that PERL is
an entirely different animal than Apache, but it still makes a good
comparison as a multi-platform project.  ActiveWhateverItIsToday once tried
to require some garbage in the registry for windows platforms.  It was a
*really* big headache and it was finally dropped (TMK).  

Could you all please learn from the mistake in history and not have to
repeat them?

Anyway, as it is today; by far most OSes do not have a registry, so why not
just do everything that _can_ be done without a registry without it?

View raw message