[lazarus] Components/Code needed

[Jeff Wormsley]

On 8/11/99, at 10:52 AM, Curtis White wrote: 

>> TRegistry:  Not usre how we want to handle this.  I'm not sure if Linux has
>> some registry compatable system.
>
>This is just my opinion, but I want to open this to discussion. I think we
>should implement TRegistry in some better way than the Windows way, on Linux.
>I personally think the Registry was one of the biggest blunders I have seen M$
>do in quite a while. In the Windows implementation, it needs to work with the
>real registry, but I don't think we should copy that same blunder in Linux. I
>would suggest implementing it as Conf files or something like that. As long as
>the Interace is the same, it doesn't necessarily have to work the same.

Well, the registry was a good idea poorly implemented, IMNSHO.   The idea of having global machine level settings versus individual user settings was a good one, but it would have been much better for the OS to maintain an independent file from the applications, and severely limit what an application could update in the OS portion.  I don't particularly want an application to change my IDE hard drive controller to a SCSI ;^).  In NT it isn't so bad, but in win9x it is a nightmare.

One possibility would be to wrap the registry functionality onto files that were accessed like INI files.  The key tree stucture could be a trick, but not too bad.  This would allow the files to be treated pretty much like normal conf files, in that they would be text editable.

Jeff.