GSoC proposal

[Guo Jian]

Hi George,
Di you notice this in that page:
The RegOpenUserClassesRoot function provides a merged view for
processes, such as services, that are dealing with clients other than
the interactive user

In http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms724899(v=vs.85).aspx
it says:
Applications running in the security context of the interactively
logged-on user do not need to use RegOpenUserClassesRoot. These
applications can call the RegOpenKeyEx function to retrieve a merged
view of the HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT key for the interactive user.

I'm not sure if we need to provide support for non-interactive users
in the future in wine. But as we are working to solve the problem that
applications could not fetch settings stored in his classes correctly.
I think it may be enough to regard RegOpenUserClassesRoot with
RegOpenKeyEx-HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT the same.
And when I tried to test the difference of keys listed and not listed
in that page as a logged on user, I found that they are treated all
the same. All subkeys in hklm are listed if not duplicate with those
in hkcu.

Hope that helps.


2013/5/17 George Stephanos <gaf.stephanos at gmail.com>:
> As we know already from [1], the merge is going to happen according to
> certain rules.
> The list at the end of the page signifies which subkeys are going to be
> *merged* from HKLM\Software\Classes\subkey and HKCU\Software\Classes\subkey
> and not simply linked to.
>
> Now there's a comment on the article that says that list is stored in a key.
> That lead me into thinking that the list is dynamic and should be
> determined at runtime using that key. However that key doesn't exist on my
> Win8 box or the web even.
> Should I just assume the list is static and build my tests/code according to
> it? Is there something I'm missing?
>
> [1] -
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms724498(v=vs.85).aspx
>
>
> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:26 AM, George Stephanos <gaf.stephanos at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> I'm done. Sorry for the font massacre. They're not changing :|
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Juan Lang <juan.lang at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'll leave it open till tomorrow (my time.) Thanks,
>>> --Juan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Juan Lang <juan.lang at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Oh, hang on, I just flipped it so you can modify it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Juan Lang <juan.lang at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you can add more of a timeline in a response. Will that work?
>>>>> --Juan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 9:40 AM, George Stephanos
>>>>> <gaf.stephanos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I had responded already but yes I'm a little bit shallow on the
>>>>>> timeline details. Alright.
>>>>>> Could you give me permission to modify the proposal?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Regards,
Guo Jian