Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

a simple linux registry

Expand Messages
  • Tzafrir Cohen
    I saw an interesting project lately: a Perfect Configuration System [tm], but designed with simplicity in mind: Each key resides in its own text file, and the
    Message 1 of 7 , Apr 11 9:29 AM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      I saw an interesting project lately: a Perfect Configuration System
      [tm], but designed with simplicity in mind: Each key resides in its own
      text file, and the registry sits in its own tree structure.

      http://registry.sourceforge.net/

      The only disatvantages I can think of is the disk space consumption.
      I wonder How much can ReiserFS help here? XFS?


      But the atvantages are obvious: everything remains a file:

      * can use whaever permission scheme is used on the system
      * moving a subtree is an atomic operation.
      * I wonder if symlinks are sensible
      * Can be easily manipulated with the tools we all know

      Comments? Flames? Will you use it in your own project?

      --
      Tzafrir Cohen +---------------------------+
      http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir/ |vim is a mutt's best friend|
      mailto:tzafrir@... +---------------------------+
    • Muli Ben-Yehuda
      ... Shouldn t be significant for the average number of items in a configuration. I wonder how many items a typical windows registry has? ... Everytthing is its
      Message 2 of 7 , Apr 11 2:21 PM
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sun, Apr 11, 2004 at 07:29:57PM +0300, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:

        > I saw an interesting project lately: a Perfect Configuration System
        > [tm], but designed with simplicity in mind: Each key resides in its own
        > text file, and the registry sits in its own tree structure.
        >
        > http://registry.sourceforge.net/
        >
        > The only disatvantages I can think of is the disk space
        > consumption.

        Shouldn't be significant for the average number of items in a
        configuration. I wonder how many items a typical windows registry has?

        > But the atvantages are obvious: everything remains a file:
        >
        > * can use whaever permission scheme is used on the system
        > * moving a subtree is an atomic operation.
        > * I wonder if symlinks are sensible
        > * Can be easily manipulated with the tools we all know

        Everytthing is its own file sounds a lot like the sysfs design in
        kernel 2.6, which is a Good Thing.

        > Comments? Flames? Will you use it in your own project?

        Not likely (my code tends to have simple configuration needs), but
        sounds like it's the right way to do it.

        Cheers,
        Muli
        --
        Muli Ben-Yehuda
        http://www.mulix.org | http://mulix.livejournal.com/
      • Shlomi Fish
        ... Well, personally, I don t find it too user friendly. Most users (including me) would prefer if all the relevant information was present in a small number
        Message 3 of 7 , Apr 11 7:14 PM
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          On Sunday 11 April 2004 19:29, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
          > I saw an interesting project lately: a Perfect Configuration System
          > [tm], but designed with simplicity in mind: Each key resides in its own
          > text file, and the registry sits in its own tree structure.
          >
          > http://registry.sourceforge.net/
          >
          > The only disatvantages I can think of is the disk space consumption.
          > I wonder How much can ReiserFS help here? XFS?
          >
          >
          > But the atvantages are obvious: everything remains a file:
          >
          > * can use whaever permission scheme is used on the system
          > * moving a subtree is an atomic operation.
          > * I wonder if symlinks are sensible
          > * Can be easily manipulated with the tools we all know
          >
          > Comments? Flames? Will you use it in your own project?

          Well, personally, I don't find it too user friendly. Most users (including me)
          would prefer if all the relevant information was present in a small number of
          files that can be managed using several editor instances. (preferablly even
          just one that is relevant to the problem at hand). Tweaking of fixing a
          registry like that by hand sounds like a real nightmare.

          Usually, I prefer INI-formatted or a similar simple minded configuration file.
          Some INI-files implementations (like Perl's Config::IniFiles), support
          nesting INI sections, to produce a Windows registry like effect. (while still
          keeping the accessibility of text files).

          XML for configuration is probably not such a good idea if you want it to be
          editable by hand. YAML seems like a better choice in this regard, but I don't
          speak from experience on this. Of course, YAML is not as expressive as XML
          is.

          Regards,

          Shlomi Fish

          ---------------------------------------------------------------------
          Shlomi Fish shlomif@...
          Homepage: http://shlomif.il.eu.org/

          Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
          [Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.]
        • Elad Efrat
          ... [...] i think it s gay ugly stupid pointless messy huge and a waste of time
          Message 4 of 7 , Apr 26 4:00 AM
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            On Sun, 11 Apr 2004, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:

            > I saw an interesting project lately: a Perfect Configuration System
            > [tm], but designed with simplicity in mind: Each key resides in its own
            > text file, and the registry sits in its own tree structure.
            >
            > http://registry.sourceforge.net/
            [...]

            i think it's gay ugly stupid pointless messy huge and a waste of time
          • Muli Ben-Yehuda
            ... time Oh, come on, don t be shy - tell us what you really think about it! Cheers, Muli -- Muli Ben-Yehuda http://www.mulix.org |
            Message 5 of 7 , Apr 26 4:12 AM
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:00:37PM +0300, Elad Efrat wrote:
              >
              > On Sun, 11 Apr 2004, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
              >
              > > I saw an interesting project lately: a Perfect Configuration System
              > > [tm], but designed with simplicity in mind: Each key resides in its own
              > > text file, and the registry sits in its own tree structure.
              > >
              > > http://registry.sourceforge.net/
              > [...]
              >
              > i think it's gay ugly stupid pointless messy huge and a waste of
              time

              Oh, come on, don't be shy - tell us what you really think about it!

              Cheers,
              Muli
              --
              Muli Ben-Yehuda
              http://www.mulix.org | http://mulix.livejournal.com/
            • Tzafrir Cohen
              ... BTW: that page is not currently availbe for some reason. Try http://sf.net/projects/registry ... Ugly, stupid, pointless: maybe. Huge: sure it isn t. Look
              Message 6 of 7 , Apr 28 2:24 PM
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:00:37PM +0300, Elad Efrat wrote:
                >
                > On Sun, 11 Apr 2004, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
                >
                > > http://registry.sourceforge.net/

                BTW: that page is not currently availbe for some reason. Try
                http://sf.net/projects/registry

                > [...]
                >
                > i think it's gay ugly stupid pointless messy huge and a waste of time

                Ugly, stupid, pointless: maybe.

                Huge: sure it isn't. Look at the size of the code of the library. Comare
                to gnome's gconf .

                Oh and: Why do you choose to waste your breath and time on it?

                Cheers.

                --
                Tzafrir Cohen +---------------------------+
                http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir/ |vim is a mutt's best friend|
                mailto:tzafrir@... +---------------------------+
              • Beni Cherniavsky
                ... If it becomes a problem, ReiserFS is definitely a solution. Enabling this sort of things is the purpose that initially motivated ReiserFS. ... I find the
                Message 7 of 7 , Apr 30 6:21 AM
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Tzafrir Cohen wrote on 2004-04-11:
                  > I saw an interesting project lately: a Perfect Configuration System
                  > [tm], but designed with simplicity in mind: Each key resides in its own
                  > text file, and the registry sits in its own tree structure.
                  >
                  > http://registry.sourceforge.net/
                  >
                  > The only disatvantages I can think of is the disk space consumption.
                  > I wonder How much can ReiserFS help here? XFS?
                  >
                  If it becomes a problem, ReiserFS is definitely a solution. Enabling
                  this sort of things is the purpose that initially motivated ReiserFS.

                  > But the atvantages are obvious: everything remains a file:
                  >
                  > * can use whaever permission scheme is used on the system
                  > * moving a subtree is an atomic operation.
                  > * I wonder if symlinks are sensible
                  > * Can be easily manipulated with the tools we all know
                  >
                  > Comments? Flames? Will you use it in your own project?
                  >
                  I find the key format to be suboptimal.

                  - What's that about 20..39 for binary formats and 40..254 for text
                  formats? Why?!? Why not use something extensible, like names?
                  Why not use something established, like MIME types?

                  - I don't think a standard header would do anybody good. Without a
                  header, existing file types could be used with full support from
                  existing tools (think images - how many image viewers skip everything
                  until ``<DATA>``?).

                  - Without a header, we don't need the `rg` command. `ls`, `cat`,
                  etc., SHOULD be directly useful on the "registry", otherwise you
                  lose half the benefits.

                  Let's see what it takes to get rid of the header:

                  - Format version - not relevant if there is no registry format.

                  - Data type & comments - if you need these at all, it makes more
                  sense to use a gconf-like model where the expected type and
                  key meaning documentation are stored separately as a "scheme".
                  That way a user overwriting the key won't lose the documentation.
                  That's good.

                  - If you do need the metadata per-instance of the key, the ideal
                  option would be to use subfiles of the file, as will be possible
                  in reiserfs4 (any file also behaves as a directory). Otherwise,
                  less beautiful arrangements are possible...

                  That's it - no headers! No headers => no need for a special tool and
                  to a great extent even no need for a library!


                  --
                  Beni Cherniavsky <cben@...>
                  Note: I can only read email on week-ends...
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.