Thanks Guys for your comments on the approach. I agree completely with
y'all - its a dirty approach and has many shortcomings.
Should I file a feature request for permanent/robust solution?

On Dec 2, 2:41 pm, "Thilo-Alexander Ginkel" <> wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 December 2009 22:08:26 Chris Clark wrote:
> > Modifying the registry and then restoring is not a great idea. I can see
> > why you are doing it but I'd encourage you to NOT do this. There is a
> > potential here for a background web app to fail (e.g. web browser based
> > IM tool).
> Not only that, but there is an ugly race condition hidden in that pattern:
> Start post-review twice in parallel and you might end up with no configured
> proxy if you have the following execution order:
> Instance 1                    Instance 2
> ----------                    ----------
> p := read setting
> disable proxy
>                               p2 := read setting
>                               disable proxy
> set proxy <- p
>                               set proxy <- p2
> I fixed the issue for my installation using the approach suggested by Chris in
> <>, which works
> like a charm.
> Regards,
> Thilo

Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at
Happy user? Let us know at
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to