Jump to content











Photo
- - - - -

A suggestion for Reg2WBS and/or ConvRegToInf


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#26 Galapo

Galapo

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 3841 posts
  •  
    Australia

Posted 17 November 2008 - 08:02 PM

So far only 2 apps, which have problems with variables of any kind in the registry are reported. IZARC and Spybot.

I can add another two: UltraISO and WinMerge.

Regards,
Galapo.

#27 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12702 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 17 November 2008 - 08:12 PM

I can add another two: UltraISO and WinMerge.

Just a question:

Are UltraISO and WinMerge and the other problematic scripts generated by either Reg2WBS or ConvRegToInf?

If not, something here seems to be EXTREMELY OFFTOPIC

(This topic is a suggestion to enlarge the ability of two existing tools)

Peter

#28 JonF

JonF

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1185 posts
  • Location:Boston, MA
  •  
    United States

Posted 17 November 2008 - 08:30 PM

IMHO the topic has expanded to whether or not it is appropriate to enhance the capabilities of the two tools. If sticking %CDDrive% into the master environment would fix the issue, then that would be the way to go.

Again IMHO, the posting of a few but popular apps for which this would not work makes the environment variable route impractical.

#29 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 17 November 2008 - 08:46 PM

No idea how the scripts were created, but it's not a problem of the scripts but of the application.
At least the issue that variables in the registry arn't resoved. The undefined %CDDrive% is a completely different cup of tea, i would presume.

I only know, every time some program shows some weird bug/behavior no other shows, i find out it's a Delphi program. :)

:(

#30 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12702 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 17 November 2008 - 08:55 PM

IMHO the topic has expanded to whether or not it is appropriate to enhance the capabilities of the two tools. If sticking %CDDrive% into the master environment would fix the issue, then that would be the way to go.

Again IMHO, the posting of a few but popular apps for which this would not work makes the environment variable route impractical.

Here we have an 'how to understand' conflict.

You think that your topic is expanded to ????
And I think that everything is working as intended.

Please excuse my low level knowledge of English language, but can you explain, maybe with sample or 'do it' what

Again IMHO, the posting of a few but popular apps for which this would not work makes the environment variable
route impractical.

means

Peter

#31 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12702 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 17 November 2008 - 09:00 PM

No idea how the scripts were created, but it's not a problem of the scripts but of the application.
At least the issue that variables in the registry arn't resoved. The undefined %CDDrive% is a completely different cup of tea, i would presume.

I only know, every time some program shows some weird bug/behavior no other shows, i find out it's a Delphi program. :)

:(

The issue is that Delphi uses the pure M$ API (The functions provided by Kernel.dll &Co)

BTW: Did you ever work professionally with M$ Visual Studio 2003 or 2005?

Peter

#32 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 17 November 2008 - 09:13 PM

Again IMHO, the posting of a few but popular apps for which this would not work makes the environment variable route impractical.

You mean like streets are impractical, because ships can't drive on them? :)

:(

#33 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 17 November 2008 - 09:16 PM

BTW: Did you ever work professionally with M$ Visual Studio 2003 or 2005?

No, the last one i used professionally was VS6.

:)

#34 Galapo

Galapo

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 3841 posts
  •  
    Australia

Posted 17 November 2008 - 09:47 PM

Just a question:

Are UltraISO and WinMerge and the other problematic scripts generated by either Reg2WBS or ConvRegToInf?

If not, something here seems to be EXTREMELY OFFTOPIC

Yes, from memory I think I used ConvRegToInf at the time, and had to make manual adjustments. But that's fine and that's my point: these programs are the few exceptions, so it seems unreasonable to have have Reg2WBS or ConvRegToInf change their variable handling to overcome the issue. Even in these scripts, most registry entries for the apps still can be coded with 0x2 entry rather than 0x1, so even with these apps the issue is an exception rather than the rule. So in my opinion Reg2WBS and ConvRegToInf do not need enhancing in this regard as they are doing the job they are expected to do. My point is that even though some apps require RegAddBoot calls, this does not mean that either Reg2WBS or ConvRegToInf need to start using this call. Rather, I think when this call is needed is a decision which can only be made after testing, when 0x2 doesn't work and 0x1 is needed to be written at boot with filled variables.

The issue of an undefined %CDDrive% still in my opinion seems to be an issue for VistaPE to solve, either via api or some other method.

Regards,
Galapo.

#35 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12702 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 17 November 2008 - 09:55 PM

Yes, from memory I think I used ConvRegToInf at the time, and had to make manual adjustments. But that's fine and that's my point: these programs are the few exceptions, so it seems unreasonable to have have Reg2WBS or ConvRegToInf change their variable handling to overcome the issue. Even in these scripts, most registry entries for the apps still can be coded with 0x2 entry rather than 0x1, so even with these apps the issue is an exception rather than the rule. So in my opinion Reg2WBS and ConvRegToInf do not need enhancing in this regard as they are doing the job they are expected to do. My point is that even though some apps require RegAddBoot calls, this does not mean that either Reg2WBS or ConvRegToInf need to start using this call. Rather, I think when this call is needed is a decision which can only be made after testing, when 0x2 doesn't work and 0x1 is needed to be written at boot with filled variables.

The issue of an undefined %CDDrive% still in my opinion seems to be an issue for VistaPE to solve, either via api or some other method.

Regards,
Galapo.

Thanks, Galapo, for your comment.

Did I understand you correctly, that you agree with my opinion that changes of Reg2WBS orConvRegToInf and/or WinBuilder are not necessary, unlike JohnF suggested when creating this topic?

Peter

#36 Galapo

Galapo

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 3841 posts
  •  
    Australia

Posted 17 November 2008 - 10:03 PM

Yes, I agree that Reg2WBS and ConvRegToInf are doing the job they are expected to do and no enhancements with regards to automatic generation of RegAddBoot calls is necessary. I have this opinion as it still remains to be shown that the undefined %CDDrive% variable is something for Reg2WBS and ConvRegToInf to solve rather than the VistaPE project itself.

Regards,
Galapo.

#37 JonF

JonF

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1185 posts
  • Location:Boston, MA
  •  
    United States

Posted 17 November 2008 - 11:04 PM

People work with WinBuilder for a lot of different reasons. As a community we should consider other's motivations and desires.

It appears to me that Peter and Galapo are solely interested in securing their concept of what WinBuilder should be, and if that prevents others from achieving their goals that's those other's problem. I tend to deal with what is and work toward bottom-line goals.

I withdraw my suggestion. I will no longer participate in this topic.

#38 Galapo

Galapo

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 3841 posts
  •  
    Australia

Posted 17 November 2008 - 11:10 PM

Sorry, JonF! Perhaps I was a little too black-and-white in my comments.

I agree: WB is a community project, and accepts input from users. In this case, I'm still unsure if the issue with the variable is a concern that should be addressed by Reg2WBS and ConvRegToInf rather than the VistaPE project. That is, the issue of an undefined variable %CDDrive% would seem to be solved by defining the variable rather than have Reg2WBS and ConvRegToInf write many unnecessary RegAddBoot lines.

Regards,
Galapo.

#39 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 17 November 2008 - 11:49 PM

On a general note, since i've seen it a couple of times before.
I would suggest that people rather complain about bugs being fixed, than asking for tools to make those bugs 'invisible' by themselfs.

:)

#40 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12702 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 18 November 2008 - 07:33 PM

@JonF
It has never been my intention to affront you.

But you are right, that I have some rules I try to follow, in order to do 'usable' programming.

It appears to me that Peter and Galapo are solely interested in securing their concept of what WinBuilder should be, and if that prevents others from achieving their goals that's those other's problem.

I'm 'solely interested' that tools I offer can be used 'universally'.
In the special case:
Reg2WBS in older versions created script lines, following the pure WinBuilder syntax.
When the API came up, I have been asked to write lines processable by the API. I did so (optionally by check box).
From your posts, I think that you are not unexperienced in programming, an therefore I assume that you understand:
Currently, in case of %CDDrive%, I refuse to make any changes, because:
  • (unimportant, could be changed) I do not even know what %CDDrive% is good for
  • I NEVER hardcode a special exception needed by a secondary program, into my apps
    You know: Primary client is WinBuilder script engine, and WinBuilder can have an 'unlimited' number of 'secondary clients'

People work with WinBuilder for a lot of different reasons. As a community we should consider other's motivations and desires.

As a logical result of the previous said: Secondary clients have to change the results gotten from 'primary apps', to fullfill their needs. Maybe by manual edit, or maybe somebody writes an app doing this automatically.
Maybe I'm the person writing this overlaying app, if I get some usable instructions ....

I withdraw my suggestion. I will no longer participate in this topic.

I understand your emotions because you feel to be not understood.
I often reacted in the same way.

But I always come back ...

Peter :)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users