httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joseph <Jos...@austintx.net>
Subject Re: Win32 Install Paths
Date Tue, 10 Aug 1999 20:29:16 GMT
At 03:59 PM 8/10/99 -0400, Greg Marr wrote:
>At 03:37 PM 8/10/99 , Joseph wrote:
>>Can you just not put anything in the registry at all?
>
>No.  Windows NT service entries need to be put in the registry.

Yes, that would be true.  There are some things that must be put in the 
registry so I mis-spoke my question, but not anywhere near as much junk as 
many [other] applications tend to put in there needs to be.

What I'm suggesting is to not begin using the registry as a catch-all for 
just anything or everything that can be put in there.

It could be in the realm of theoretical possibility for Apache to start 
putting *all* configuration in there for Win32 platforms, or any grade of 
lesser amount of info.  I've seen analogies happen on other cross-platform 
projects, particularly when there is no reasoning behind it - a case of 
somebody doing something because they can, but not because it was a 
measurably better thing.  I don't know anybody here well enough to be sure 
that that isn't going to start happening with Apache, so based on what I 
have seen, I do feel compelled to try to do what I can to help prevent it.




>>The registry is a very evil thing and great lengths should be taken to 
>>avoid it whenever practical.
>
>I must disagree.  However, this reeks of a religious debate, and so I will 
>not discuss it further.

Well, if you have problems with my way of expressing things, fine, but the 
problems are measurable.  You can measure the effects of using the registry 
when it doesn't need to be, and measure the effects of using it only when 
*required* by the platform.  Being a measurable phenomena, there is no 
"religious" debate involved.




>>With Apache being a cross-platform project, wouldn't it make more sense 
>>to do as much as practical in a cross-platform fashion?
>
>Yes.  As much as practical has been done.  99.999% of the configuration is 
>done in text files.

Great!  So it is going to stay that way on Win32 for all-time?




>>What other platforms have a registry?
>
>OS/2 (I've heard)


Yep.  So that brings the percentage of platforms, or percentage of 
user-base, or however you would like to measure of registry-using systems 
up to some still very small number.



>>Also, paths that do not conform to 8.3 naming often cause problems.  Sure 
>>the problems are mostly with M.S. programs (like installers, etc), but 
>>there are tools and what-nots that do not like paths not conforming to 
>>8.3 naming.
>
>If you use tools like this, then install it in a path that uses 8.3 
>naming.  Let the rest of the world keep progressing.  (There hasn't been 
>an OS released in the last four years, that I know of, that restricts file 
>names to 8.3).


I didn't say anything about any OS.

There is such a thing as retrograde technology where people think they are 
progressing, but in actuality they are ignoring factors that have already 
been learned and thus condemn themselves to repeat the same problems.  This 
is often a case of people doing things because they can but without regard 
to what they should considering measurable effects.


>>Also, who wants to have to type all of that in every time they happen to 
>>need to type in a path?  That name is very (very very very very) long and 
>>consumes much horizontal space - is that really necessary??  It will be a 
>>nuisance with Explorer, etc. and part(s) of it will simply not be visible 
>>in text areas that display path names in some programs.
>
>If you find it a pain, don't use it.


Of course.  However, I am also trying to save other unwitting people from 
the same pain.  Surely you wouldn't fault me for that would you?




>>Perhaps you are trying to be cute?
>
>No, the recommended default for program installation locations is \Program 
>Files\<Company Name>\<Program Name>\.


Yes and if M.S. recommend you jump... well anyway, I think the default 
install path is a moot point by now.


>>Also, are you saying automatically put it there (or in some more 
>>practical directory) no matter, or would there be an option to install it 
>>where ever the user chooses?
>
>This is the default directory used by the install program.  The user has a 
>chance to change it if they so desire.
>
>>There really has to be an option - stuffing programs on somebodies C 
>>drive without choice is a very evil thing do to them.  For one reason, it 
>>is a common design to have the C volume be very small, and place 
>>applications, etc on other volumes that are designed to have 
>>applications.  Such designs can have numerous advantages, and inflicting 
>>a person who has smartly designed their computer with a small C drive is 
>>really not nice at all.
>
>That's why I change the path to another drive when I install it.  However, 
>C is pretty much the only drive that can be guaranteed to be 
>available.  Many machines only have one drive.


That's all very true, but again, I've seen cases of cross-platform projects 
exhibiting retrograde technology, even after some time of having been 
ported to win32, and it would be sad if Apache were to go that way also.

Mime
View raw message