Hmm I may be completely mistaken but doesn''t Windows use the ActCtx stuff for compatibility profiles? Wouldn't we be able to use "forward-compatibility" profiles? If that's right, it may be the cleanest system for it.
On 7 March 2015 at 22:38, Jerome Gardou <jerome.gar...@reactos.org> wrote: > > > Le 07/03/2015 22:21, Timo Kreuzer a écrit : > > Am 07.03.2015 um 20:04 schrieb Colin Finck: > > Am 07.03.2015 um 13:44 schrieb Timo Kreuzer: > > The file system > redirection would redirect system32 into merged folders, containing the > version specific DLLs, while everything that is not existing in this > folder will be taken from the original system32. Potential naming > scheme: system32.601 system32.602, etc. > > Isn't that the same problem WinSxS tries to solve? Do we really need to > introduce another folder scheme for multiple DLL versions here? > > AFAIK SxS only works with manifests, not with registry configuration > (correct me if I'm wrong), so we'd probably need a modified solution here > anyway. And have you ever had a look into your Windows/winsxs folder? DLL > hell 2.0! My winsxs folder on Win7 contains > 14.000 subfolders. (ok, one > might take that as an argument, that another few hundred or thousand > wouldn't hurt so much ;-)) > > You're not wrong, but we could store the manifest into the registry. With > a nice config tool, that would be completely transparent to the user. > > > > Okay, SxS manages one DLL per folder while your idea is to have folders > with multiple DLLs of the same version. But if we do file system > redirection anyway, this should be solvable. Or am I missing something > here? > > I don't see the relationship between FS redirection and SxS. If we do the > former, we don't need the latter. In fact FS redirection wouldn't work very > well in an environment, where each DLL lives in it's own folder. > > > We need full SxS support anyway, so why not make use of it for this > task as well? > > > I just think that a wow64 like FS redirection might be the cleanest and > easiest approach. We are not going to handle all kinds of different DLL > versions in all kinds of mixes, just a relatively small set of major OS > versions. And each of them with a pretty consistent set of DLLs. > But that doesn't mean that I would rule out sxs. If we can easily provide > an sxs solution, that doesn't result in a huge mess, we can go that way. > > Timo > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ros-dev mailing > listRos-dev@reactos.orghttp://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ros-dev mailing list > Ros-dev@reactos.org > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >
_______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
