Alexandre Julliard wrote: > > Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Just how terrible is parsing /etc/mtab? It doesn't look like > > much code. I'd be happy to provide a nice OO wrapper object > > for it if that would make you happier. It would then no > > longer be an ugly hack. Would that satisfy you? Or are > > you fundamentally opposed to it for some other reason than > > code clarity? > > Code clarity is one thing (it should be probably using getmntent and > friends), performance is another (parsing /etc/mtab on each CreateFile > is *not* a good idea), but mainly I'm opposed to the concept of > configuring everything by hand except magically getting smb shares > through /etc/mtab, when they may not at all reflect what you want the > Windows application to see. It doesn't fit in the current > configuration philosophy. Now of course the config philosophy can be > changed, but it must remain coherent.
I don't doubt that we don't want to be parsing /etc/mtab on each CreateFile, but I will put in a word for some modifications to the configuration philosophy when it comes to drive letters. One of the problems we've come across recently is this: for games that use copy protection, we need to have direct access to the device that a CD-ROM drive uses. For the moment, this relys on the user to manually configure their drive letters. From what we've seen, doing so is beyond the ken of many of our users. As such, we've http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/9376/2001/11/0/7204310/ -- Gavriel State, CEO TransGaming Technologies Inc. http://www.transgaming.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
